Re: Concern about new binding.

[Gregory Heytings]

> > A proposal to solve the current problem and future similar problems is 
> > to free one of the keys, and to mention in `(elisp) Key Binding 
> > Conventions' that it is, forever, reserved for external packages.
> >
> > This proposal has two forms: a weak and a strong one.  The weak one 
> > would only reserve the control key, the strong one would also reserve 
> > the meta and control-meta keys.
> >
> > The candidate keys for that proposal are "z", "t" and "o".
>
> C-z, C-t, and C-o are already taken

I know this; I said "to _free_ one of the keys".

> C-t in particular is very useful and frequently-used (by me, FWIW), and 
> also matches the default binding in Bash, GDB CLI, and elsewhere.  A 
> recent discussion demonstrated that at least for C-z enough people are 
> against changing its binding, even though we have "C-x C-z" to do the 
> same.

Yes, it is unavoidable that some people will be against changing a 
binding.  I have no preference between the three proposed keys, and 
anticipated that there would be more objections against using "t" for that 
purpose.  If we put "t" aside, there are still two other options: "z" and 
"o".

> These data points suggest that usurping these keys may not be easy, to 
> say the least.

The meaning of the proposal is that the benefit of such a single change 
is, in the long term, largely superior to its loss in the short term.