> > + On a graphics terminal, the easiest way to invoke @code{undo} is
> > +with @kbd{C-/}; that doesn't need the shift key. On a text terminal,
> > +@kbd{C-/} does not exist, but usually you can type @kbd{C-_} without
> > +the shift key and it will work anyway.
> > +
> Does this only make sense with a qwerty keyboard?
I don't think the keyboard _layout_ makes a difference. An ASCII-only Dvorak
keyboard would presumably support the same control characters.
On a Swedish keyboard layout, none of the default bindings for undo is as convenient as they are when using an English keyboard QWERTY layout. Regardless of which of the bindings I want to use, I will need to press the Shift key as well as the Control key, or I have to use the "longest" of the bindings (C-x u). Same goes for some other bindings that are very convenient on an English keyboard layout, for example M-/ (dabbrev-expand, requires the Shift key on a Swedish layout, since they placed / on the same key as 7 on the number row).
Is this a big problem? Not very. I could rebind these commands if I wanted to, to something that is convenient to me. And I *can* type the default bindings as well, both in GUI and terminal Emacs.