>
>   > > +  On a graphics terminal, the easiest way to invoke @code{undo} is
>>   > > +with @kbd{C-/}; that doesn't need the shift key.  On a text
>> terminal,
>>   > > +@kbd{C-/} does not exist, but usually you can type @kbd{C-_}
>> without
>>   > > +the shift key and it will work anyway.
>>   > > +
>>
>>   > Does this only make sense with a qwerty keyboard?
>>
>> I don't think the keyboard _layout_ makes a difference.  An ASCII-only
>> Dvorak
>> keyboard would presumably support the same control characters.
>>
>
On a Swedish keyboard layout, none of the default bindings for undo is as
convenient as they are when using an English keyboard QWERTY layout.
Regardless of which of the bindings I want to use, I will need to press the
Shift key as well as the Control key, or I have to use the "longest" of the
bindings (C-x u). Same goes for some other bindings that are very
convenient on an English keyboard layout, for example M-/ (dabbrev-expand,
requires the Shift key on a Swedish layout, since they placed / on the same
key as 7 on the number row).

Is this a big problem? Not very. I could rebind these commands if I wanted
to, to something that is convenient to me. And I *can* type the default
bindings as well, both in GUI and terminal Emacs.