> Are you envisioning that we would create standard key bindings
> for these functions?

I was not suggesting that here. However,I think this would be ideal,
especially given that mark-sexp is bound to three different keybindings
(C-M-@, C-M-SPC, C-M-S-SPC). What is the process for finding out if a new
keybinding would be appropriate? Or for determining whether enough people
use a keybinding to keep it, vs changing it?

> Are you envisioning that users would bind some of these functions
> to keys themselves?

Yes. This is the main use-case I envisioned.

> Are you envisioning that users would call these functions from their
> own Lisp code?

This was not my main proposal, but users can do so if they want.

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 6:02 PM Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider    ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,     ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
>   > > Attached is a patch with the following changes:
>   > >
>   > > * Uses the helper function to create mark-foo-forward,
> mark-foo-backward
>   > > for word, paragraph, sexp, page, and defun.
>
> I think these functions would make sense, but I wonder hwo they
> would do users any good.
>
> Are you envisioning that we would create standard key bindings
> for these functions?
>
> Are you envisioning that users would bind some of these functions
> to keys themselves?
>
> Are you envisioning that users would call these functions from their
> own Lisp code?
>
> Any of those would make sense in the abstract, but I doubt that any of
> them would be convenient enough to make this change worth installing.
>
>
>
> --
> Dr Richard Stallman (https://stallman.org)
> Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org)
> Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org)
> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)
>
>
>