Re: Clarifying the C-c letter guideline

[chad <yandros@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1659 bytes --]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 4:14 AM Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
wrote:

> > • Don’t define ‘C-c LETTER’ as a key in Lisp programs.  Sequences
> >   consisting of ‘C-c’ and a letter (either upper or lower case) are
> >   reserved for users; they are the *only* sequences reserved for
> >   users, so do not block them.
>
> There seems to be some uncertainty in how this should be
> interpreted. Does this mean that...
>
> - No package/library/third-party code may ever bind a command or map to
>   C-c LETTER, under any circumstances (in the letter of the law).
>
> - A package/library/third-party code may bind a command or a map to C-c
>   LETTER, if the user is explicitly asked and he or she gives
>   permission (in the spirit of the law).
>

IIRC, the intent was roughly "anyone interested in binding key inside Emacs
should assume that individual users may have arbitrary bindings to anything
inside C-c", with the strong implication that they cannot "safely"
establish any common or conventional binding inside that space. (I don't
recall if the original intent was restricted to C-c [alpha], C-c
[alphanum], or C-c [any-single].

If my memory from ~30 years ago is correct, this didn't outlaw a local
group from making packages that used C-c bindings, with the understanding
that a given lab or research group would manage conflicts within themselves
as needed. Of course, in those times a given elisp "package" was likely to
be distributed  uuencoded via email, ftp, or usenet, with changes noted in
RCS or SCCS headers, so "distribution" wasn't the same sort of concern.

Hope that helps,
~Chad

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2123 bytes --]