Re: not good proposal: "C-z <letter>" reserved for users

[Jean Louis]

* Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> [2021-02-15 21:29]:
> There are tradeoffs in any decision.
> 
> Freeing 'C-z' up, for example, won't help most authors anyway.

That is not freeing, that is blocking shell users.

User experience from yesterday, I was running "guix search editor" in the quest
to find ways to get Leo editor running on my computer, but with fail. Any way,
I found "ne" or nice editor, and I installed it. But I did not know
keybindings, so Control-Z would work, it would save my work. What if I had some
other jobs running in the same time, let us say some processing in background,
I invoke "ne" and do not know how to exit, I wish to read the manual, but I
cannot, so Control-Z works, I can read the manual and come back to "ne", exit
out of it, and come back to my more important job processing.

So far all editors I have invoked also give the support for shell job control,
just nano needs tweaking beforehand. I am surprised.

Exactly same thing would happen if shell user invokes Emacs but cannot exit or
get surprised. What if Emacs user invokes by mistake spacemacs, maybe cannot
exit out of it. I have been invoking viper mode in past and did not know how to
exit out of it as I did not know where is M-x any more.

You think you are freeing the key, but I think you are disabling freedom to
shell users.