Re: Tweaking t-m-m to make room for d-s-m

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> It is new users that should be treated with respect. All of them know
>> these CUA key bindings. All of them use them. (If they are not computer
>> illiterates.)
>
> But please do not think you
> have a monopoly on respect for new users.


I am glad I do not have that ;-)

I just wanted to make the real subject a bit more visible.


> But I'm not convinced that the only rationale for the current Emacs bindings is
> the sorry weight of legacy.


If  it were not for the CUA keys the Emacs bindings were a good
choice. (But I really do recommend sticky keys for those that use
them.)

It is not hard at all to understand the choices. But if CUA keys had
been used before Emacs then I guess Emacs key bindings would have
included them and looked quite a bit different.

I am still all for adding "skins" for this type of change.


> Why? Isn't it just as troublesome that C-z means `resume-frame'?


resume-frame hardly needs such an important (easy to type) key
binding. undo is far more common.


> I, for one, am not convinced that CUA or Viper is the best way to promote Emacs
> productivity.


CUA *and* Viper ;-)