Re: C-z (Re: Two GTK related feature requests)

[Miles Bader]

Karl Eichwalder <address@hidden> writes:
> All hackers who speak up in this thread confirmed that they are using
> redefinition for C-z - thus ther must be something flawed with the
> current key binding ;)

I admit, I often get confused if a use `emacs -q' and accidentally hit
C-z (I usually think emacs crashed for a second).

Also `C-x C-z' is really easy to type, so just plain C-z has very little
advantage over it, except that it's slightly familiar to people running
on tty that are used to other programs' use of C-z (OTOH, `C-x C-z' is
pretty easy to remember -- it's the standard emacs prefix for such
`system commands', followed by the standard unix suspend key).  Given
the scarcity of bindings, it's rather surprising that such a
relatively-rarely used command is given _two_ easy-to-type-and-intuitive
bindings...

Maybe we should just bite the bullet and get rid of the current C-z
binding on both ttys _and_ in X.

-Miles
-- 
We live, as we dream -- alone....