RE: C-x SPC : rectangle-mark-mode or gud-break?

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

>  > > It's had a lot of time for people to get used to it.
>  > And?
> 
> History matters, Drew.

Pretty vague platitude.  So does chocolate matter.

Emacs Dev can decide whatever it wants for `C-x SPC'.

> AFAIK you don't prefer the current binding to
> a rectangle function, but want the key sequence left for future use.

Too narrow.

What I suggested was to unbind it by default, for now.  That means that
it would be open for libraries to use (and of course for users), and
it would be open for future default use by Emacs.  NOT only the latter.

> "Reserved for future use" is not really on the table here, given a
> twenty-year history for one of the bindings.

(Not just for future use.)

And yes, that can be on the table if Emacs Dev wants it on the table.
Gud has its own prefix key.  Why not use it for this command too?

> Not everybody is going to upgrade to the latest and greatest Emacs...,
> but they do sometimes share others' Emacsen.

Sure, I'm susceptible to that argument.

It is the reason, for instance, that I would prefer that we not swap
`C-j' and `RET': I use multiple Emacs versions everyday, and I prefer
to use those two keys the same way for each Emacs version.  And thank
goodness there is an easy way to keep the traditional `C-j' and `RET'
behavior.

But that inconvenience for me and my muscle memory did not prevent
Emacs Dev from swapping the two keys.  Same thing here.

Nothing prevents someone from binding `C-x SPC' to the same gud
command s?he has enjoyed since the 80s.  Freeing up the key makes
sense for all users, libraries, and future default use by Emacs.

It is a handy key.  What a shame to waste it on just setting a
gud breakpoint.  That's all.  There's no reason we cannot
reconsider this decades-old default global key binding.

But you are right that the other point here is also important:
put that rectangle command on the rectangle-commands prefix key.
Don't waste `C-x SPC' on it either.