Why not allow empty code blocks?

[Rustom Mody]

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:56:41 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Rustom Mody  wrote:
> > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 10:32:45 PM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 2:54 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> >> > The whole world uses cua keys:
> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access
> >> > [emacs] proudly sticks to what it was doing pre-cua
> >>
> >> Sadly, the "whole world" doesn't. Windows itself lacks quite a few of
> >> the CUA keys (ask a Windows user how to move a window with the
> >> keyboard, and s/he won't say "Alt-F7"), and some Windows applications
> >> make this even worse (Adobe Reader egregiously so - you can't even use
> >> Ctrl-Ins to copy to the clipboard, despite all the rest of Windows
> >> supporting it).
> >
> > Ok I was speaking in-a-manner-of-speaking -- in two ways
> > All means most
> > Cua means the most common cua-keys — C-x C-c C-v
> > of which the first two specially are so deeply embedded into emacs as prefixes
> > for 100s of other functions that its hard to change without significant upheaval
> 
> Wrong - CUA's standard keys are Shift-Del, Ctrl-Ins, Shift-Ins for the
> same operations. The alphabetics are not part of the CUA standard.
> That said, though, most applications support both - primarily because
> most GUI widgets are built to support both, and applications are
> taught to respond to signals like 'paste'.

You must be right
Ironically I learnt the word cua from emacs’ cua-mode which basically make
C-c C-x C-v (dont know which others) behave like the rest of the world expects.

Trouble is the first two are so deeply enmeshed into emacs that it does a bad job
of it. And conventional wisdom in emacs land is to avoid it and get used to the
(30+ year old!) emacs standard