Re: dired-jump keybinding and autoload

[Lennart Borgman]

On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull
<address@hidden> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman writes:
>
>  > That C-x today happens to be a bad choice (because of CUA) is another
>  > thing. I definitively does not get better if 3rd party libraries
>  > starts using it too.
>
> You're totally missing your own point.  It is precisely CUA that makes
> C-x an excellent choice of prefix for new bindings.
>
> CUA currently conflicts with all C-x bindings, and this is a
> non-trivial problem to solve because of Emacs history.  But you are
> absolutely, completely, 100.0% wrong.  Adding new C-x bindings does
> not make this problem worse.  If and when it is (really) solved, it
> will need to be solved for all C-x bindings in one fell swoop, and
> that solution will be applicable to any future C-x bindings, which
> will be less likely to conflict with existing C-x bindings because
> they will be chosen not to conflict.


You have a point there of course. I get too upset when this conflict
is ignored.. ;-)

There are some thing there I do not understand:

-. Does all C-x bindings go into Control-X-prefix? How does that work?

- Why is Control-X-prefix a full keymap (and not a sparse dito)?