RE: [External] : Re: PROPOSAL: Repurpose one key (why only one?) and reserve it for third-party packages

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> > Not sure what you're referring to, but there is
> > a very real problem of Emacs binding more and
> > more keys by default - the set of keys still
> > unbound by default is dwindling to extinction.
> 
> I understand your opinion but contrary to it, I found there are many
> available key bindings, we mentioned here Super key, key prefixes or
> maps, so it amounts in thousands. Keyboard will die sooner as physical
> keyboard then the available key bindings.

I disagree.

> > [Users] are welcome to do anything, and the
> > conventions explicitly say so.
> 
> Even third parties are welcome to do anything.

No.  The conventions reserve some keys for users,
some keys for major modes, and some keys for
minor modes.  "Reserved" means that if you follow
the convention then you don't use those, except
as a user, or for a major mode, or for a minor mode.

> What repercussion is there for third party if they actually break the
> convention?

If you don't play well with the others in the sand
box you might find yourself on the receiving end.

The conventions are there as guidelines to good,
social behavior.  No, there is no key-binding
Gestapo that will grab you out of your bed and
haul you away.  So what?

> Maybe such package would not be accepted in ELPA, but that
> is about all. They are free to bind as they wish. But they don't and
> follow the convention.

You do that, if you like.  I don't.

You can get away with driving at 230 km/hr on a
highway in France - they have limited real traffic
control.  That doesn't make such behavior smart or
civilized.

> I have not found real conflict, like nobody said so far (that I have
> spotted) that some key bindings seriously conflict with something
> else. It is hypothetical problem, but not practical.

No, key-binding conflicts, just like name conflicts,
are a practical problem.  That's why we have key
binding conventions, to avoid conflicts.

For names, Elisp at least has the possibility of
using additional obarrys.  But that's quite limited,
in practice.  Common Lisp has its "packages", which
are a bit like XML namespaces.  For key bindings
Elisp has only polite conventions.  And those work
well enough, in practice.  (They can't deal with an
Emacs that is fast developing the remaining free
territory, however.)