Re: how to change C-x prefix to C-k in a clean way?

[rustom <rustompmody@gmail.com>]

> Your modest proposal is brilliant in some as yet to be specified way.
> The only problem I see with it is if it has to be read aloud. For
> example, nxf e dsx bc bee if read out loud should probably be spelled
> out in full.
Well in normal English we are used to ough having 10s of
pronunciations see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ough_(combination)
> So, since so much time and space is saved by abbreviating
> words, there will be a concomitant opportunity to actually expand the
> individual letters, as in areeeayeellellwye
> essdoubleyoueeayeteeeyeengee!
Heh Heh!
> The only thing I am not sure of is whether
> that 26^10 (~141 trillion)is even close to being equal to c(26,1) +
> C(26,2)+ .... C(26,10). But it doesn't matter. The few hundred key
> combos in the repertoir of even the most accomplished power user is a
> tiny fraction of those potentially available by combining modifiers
> (Shift, Control, Meta, Alt, Super, Hyper) with the other fifty-some keys
> within easy reach. For instance, I just queried the binding of C-H-M-s-^
> and found that it was undefined. Surprise, surprise.

I dont get this point.  Running English uses no C/Meta/Alt/Super/Hyper
and their use is hardly claimed to be very efficient for typing.  (vi
may be less general/customizable etc but is more ergonomic than emacs)
And as someone said (is it Xah?) typing perl is not at all correlated
to typing English
>
> Still Xah is right about Dvorak. It's about 10% faster and 30% less
> taxing. (Numbers grabbed out of the air that seem about right.)

My specific (personal) problem is this:
It is certain that the amortized benefit of learning dvorak will beat
qwerty and keyscript correspondingly improves over dvorak.

But to reap that amortized benefit one needs to assume an infinite
life to offset the time (and essdoubleyoueeayetee  !)