RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding.

[Gregory Heytings]

> > > > ... but apparently you prefer to continue to use the few remaining 
> > > > keys that are not bound by default? Isn't that contradictory?
> > >
> > > How so?  The few remaining keys are more than a single key.
> >
> > ... and a complete keymap is more than a single key.
>
> No, sorry; I still don't understand.  You can bind a keymap to a key. 
> If there are _several_ keys that you can bind keymaps to, then that 
> offers more possibilities than if there is only _one_ key that you can 
> bind a keymap to.

I'm not sure I see what you mean.  It's not _one_ key.  Having a complete 
keymap at the disposal of third-party libraries means that there are (at 
least) 26 letters free; each of them can be bound to a separate keymap. 
Magit would bind the "g" and "M-g" keys, some other library would bind the 
"." and "," keys, another one would bind "x" key to a keymap, another one 
would bind the "C-k" and "C-l" keys, you would bind the "p" key to a 
keymap for your bookmark+ library, and so forth.  Or am I missing 
something?

And with the "strong" version of the proposal, there would be (at least) 
52 other prefix keys, with the meta- and control-meta- prefixes.

> And the currently unbound keys are not limited to `C-x LETTER' or even 
> `C-x <whatever>' keys.

Almost all C-SYMBOL and almost all C-M-SYMBOL keys are currently unbound 
indeed, but I don't see any evidence that Emacs is about to grab them all.