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

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> [2021-02-15 02:30]:
> > 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.

I have not written that above sentence correctly. What I wanted to say
is that third party packages do not break the convention and mostly
how I have shortly analyzed it, do not set globally keys.

They mostly will advise users to set global keys.

While they are free, they don't do that.

> > 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.

OK and where is the actual problem?

Can we define it?

I can see that some packages would recommend same key bindings on
conflicting keys, but that is not necessarily a problem, because there
are no people telling that they have conflict with it.

Conflicting keys are not necessarily conflict for the person.

For example can you tell me which key from which package collides with
other key in other package AND that it becomes a problem or conflict?

Person complaining please stand up.