RE: have cake will eat, eat cake will have - krazy key koncept kontroversy

[Drew Adams]

> Juri Linkov <address@hidden> writes:
> >> 11. WDOT?  Is this a good idea in general or not?  If so, 
> >>     do you have a good idea for an implementation of #9?
> >
> > Cua-mode uses a short delay
> > (`cua-prefix-override-inhibit-delay') to decide
> > between interpreting a key as a prefix key or using its
> > own binding.
> 
> Note that this sort of test is notoriously flaky, and should only be
> used if there's no other choice.  It's far, far, better, to 
> simply avoid the ambiguity in the first place.

In addition to Miles's point (orthogonal to it):

It's good to consider multiple possible implementations. For the subject at
hand, however, I don't think such a delay would be helpful.

IIUC, in CUA mode a delay distinguishes `C-x <delay> C-f', as cut followed by
forward-char, from `C-x C-f' as find-file.

But the discussion is about repeating the prefix key. If `C-x' for CUA were some
repeatable action (e.g. shrink the window) instead of cut, then to repeatedly
act you would need to do `C-x <delay> C-x C-x C-x' (or maybe even `C-x <delay>
C-x <delay> C-x...'; dunno).

If you're going to do that, you might as well use the approach I suggested, and
simply hit `C-x' twice: `C-x C-x' is about as easy as `C-x <delay>', especially
when repetition is involved: `C-x C-x C-x' (hold pressed) vs `C-x <delay> C-x'
(or perhaps `C-x <delay> C-x <delay>').

Anyway, I'm glad you mentioned this alternative approach. The more the merrier.