RE: Tweaking t-m-m to make room for d-s-m

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

> If  it were not for the CUA keys the Emacs bindings were a good
> choice...
> 
> It is not hard at all to understand the choices. But if CUA keys had
> been used before Emacs then I guess Emacs key bindings would have
> included them and looked quite a bit different.

There's where I disagree; that is, my guess is different from yours. I tried to
address this by pointing out the large number of keys Emacs makes use of.

Do you really think that, given that need (e.g. for easy to type prefix keys),
Emacs would waste half a dozen of the simplest keys - keys that could and
rightfully should be prefix keys - on operations like cut, copy, paste, find,
and save?

I cannot imagine that if designed today Emacs would make such a design choice.
Those that think CUA mode and Viper are the best ways to use Emacs no doubt see
things differently.

I can say that if I _were_ convinced of that then I would have no trouble
supporting a redesign of the keys we use. If the _only_ reason to keep the
traditional Emacs keys were the silly weight of legacy, then I'd drop my support
for that tradition in a heartbeat.

Since you use CUA mode and Viper, you don't experience the advantage of the
standard Emacs key choices, so that particular comparison is a wash for you. The
gain of fitting in with the rest of the CUA world then tilts the balance - it
becomes the most important consideration.

[BTW - Yes, I recognize that the need for simple prefix keys is an argument for
using `C-z' that way too. And I would support that change - I've even proposed
it in the past, I believe. Until then, C-z for activate/deactivate sounds good
to me.]