[Sorry, I don't have an opinion on \C-m which hasn't already expressed better by others - I'm against it.] sb> I think changing the [(control m)] binding sucks, but I don't sb> intend to fight against a strong consensus. I despise rebinding sb> [(control c)], [(control x)], and [(control v)] with a passion, sb> however if someone can make Kim Storm's code work with XEmacs, I sb> am not opposed to making it a default if it is installed (ie. by sb> having it autoload initialization). IMHO, this would be another case that shows that XEmacs is starting to forget its multi-user roots [1]. What if a sysadmin would install that package on a single user's request - afterwards all 999 traditional users are stuck with these silly key bindings ? Another issue: has anybody noticed the more and more widespread use of readline, i.e. emacs key-bindings in other applications ? Heck, I can even use C-a, C-k etc. in Netscape, and in a bunch of other applications, too. Converts from Windows are not the only kind of people we're dealing with. Holger Footnotes: [1] I whole-heartly believe that the package-interface, as nice as it is, and as often as I use it, is another such case. No normal user should install packages, that should be a task left for the system adminstrator (and yes, I used "should" on purpose). -- --- http://www.coling.uni-freiburg.de/~schauer/ --- "While it may look like it at a casual glance, XEmacs does not link against every library in Known Space." -- SL Baur on xemacs-beta