Re: Opening Up More Keymaps Re: Standardizing more key bindings?

[T.V Raman]

I can relate to the muscle memory, but was hoping that emacs 28
feature of echoing partial key-sequences would help.
The fact remains that keyboards are not getting any more keys any time
soon, and given that existing prefix keys are already used in one way
or another, we dont have much wiggleroom.

Anyway, time to move on, just keep this around as an idea for
experimentation if we ever get around to a  set of related commands,
eg, for programming environments etc 


Stefan Monnier writes:
 > > that's an interesting perspective.  Am surprized that you feel tty
 > > users would find C-z z significantly harder than just C-z as the key
 > > to suspend Emacs.
 > 
 > I assume tty users have "C-z to suspend" hardwired in their fingers and
 > would be quite surprised if any application decides to use another
 > binding for it.
 > 
 > 
 >         Stefan
 > 
 > 
 > > Stefan Monnier writes:
 > >  > > Since keybindings are  a strong emotional issue, I was hoping to
 > >  > > divide and conquer the problem, i.e. first free up a new prefix key,
 > >  > > then experiment  by putting a set of related commands on that key --
 > >  > > rather than chasing our tails with arguments over which key to start 
 > > with.
 > >  > 
 > >  > I think `C-z` is fair game in GUI but freeing it up for other uses in 
 > > tty
 > >  > mode will be a very hard sell.  This leaves it as "free for GUI-only
 > >  > bindings" which makes it much less useful than a true "free prefix 
 > > keymap".
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  >         Stefan
 > >  > 
 > >  > 
 > >  > > Stefan Monnier writes:
 > >  > >  > > 1. C-z as a prefix --- at present c-z   runs suspend-frame under 
 > > X, and
 > >  > >  > >    suspends Emacs on the console.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > Then again, `C-z` is a standard binding for `undo`.  ;-)
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > >    Perhaps turn C-z into a new prefix key, and bind the above 
 > > commands
 > >  > >  > >    to C-z z -- that gives us a whole new keymap to play with for 
 > > the
 > >  > >  > >    future.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > It's true that there's some logic to use C-z, C-x, and C-c for 
 > > standard
 > >  > >  > prefix keys.  Yet, I think this can only make sense if we have a 
 > > clear
 > >  > >  > idea of what kinds of bindings we'd put into this prefix.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > >    2. F2 is currently taken up by 2c (2column support) and 
 > > perhaps it's
 > >  > >  > >       time to recover that key, I suspect 2c is not as heavily 
 > > used to
 > >  > >  > >       justify a common key like F2, and it would still have C-x 6
 > >  > >  > >       dedicated to it if we take F2 away from it.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > I agree that the binding of `f2` to `2C-command` can be dropped.
 > >  > >  > Not sure what to bind it to instead, OTOH.
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  > 
 > >  > >  >         Stefan
 > >  > >
 > >  > > -- 
 > >  > > ♉Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  🦮♉
 > >
 > > -- 
 > > ♉Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  🦮♉

-- 
♉Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  🦮♉

--
♉Id: kg:/m/0285kf1  🦮♉