bug#24379: [PATCH] lisp/bindings.el: Bind (yank-pop -1) to M-Y

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

> > Many users already have their own yanking (or other) commands
> > bound to such keys.  (Just google `emacs "C-M-y"' and
> > `emacs "M-y"'.)
> 
> How would a new binding affect these users?

Users can always override any key bindings, of course.
But many users are hesitant to override default bindings,
for whatever reasons.

This suggested default binding is really unnecessary, IMO.
It is trivial for someone to add it, if they like.
 
> > In my case, for example, `M-y' is `icicle-yank-pop-commands',
> > and `C-M-y' is `secondary-dwim'.
> 
> M-y is already bound to yank-pop in plain Emacs, so I'm not
> sure I follow your point :/

Yes, and my `M-y' is only turned on in Icicle minor mode (but
which I am always in).  You can drop that example, if you like,
and just google for `emacs "M-y"' if you would like to see what
other users do with `M-y'.

My point was the _general_ one that I stated: (1) Many users
have their own uses of `M-y' and `C-M-y'.  And (2) adding this
particular binding is not helpful - it is trivial for anyone
to add it, if they really want it.

There are not so many good keys available.  Arguments for
binding more keys globally (not for some mode) by default,
in particular, should be strong arguments.

They should not proceed _only_ from:

 * the-key-is-not-bound-by-default or
 * here-is-a-useful-command-that-is-not-bound-by-default

There should be a more compelling reason to add a new default
key binding, IMHO.