On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 7:05 AM Eli Zaretskii <
eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> Cc: bugs@gnu.support, larsi@gnus.org, gregory@heytings.org,
> emacs-devel@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com
> From: Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>
> Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 15:09:50 +0200
>
> Having an alternative, well-considered set of bindings which new user
> can just toggle on and get comfortable should be valuable.
I doubt that, because we already tried that in CUA mode. That one
actually was better posed to succeed, since its key bindings weren't
invented "out of thin air", but use widely accepted conventions.
FWIW, over the years, I have seen several people who were very interested in CUA mode who eventually turned it off due to it working "most but not all of the time". This experience is pretty old, but internet searches show similar feedback continuing since then. In practice, it means that users who might have recommended cua-mode instead anti-recommend it.
When I've looked at it for other people, it seems like an issue that can't actually be fixed, because the people who care enough to change the bindings need them to be absolutely %100 reliable, which the time-based approach isn't. I'm afraid that I can't help more than that -- emacs' default bindings are far more ingrained for me than the CUA bindings (a fact that I learned to accept long ago when moving away from emacs' `C-w' and `C-q').
This is all to say: cua-mode has its own set of problems as an example.
~Chad