The good thing about only three people discussing is that you can get through with three opinions. In the case of five people, there are already ten opinions.....
I think the last draft of the keyboard layout was very successful, I could immediately work productively with it
. Of course, I still have a few comments and try to explain them as well as possible.
You already mentioned the exchange of SAVE and HOME.
Suggestion: I think you can rename DRG-> to TRANS(mute). I think that's what's being done here. Then R<- and ->P would be well lifted here again, like the 42S.
My opinion is: I think you really shouldn't have any stack and register operations on the cursor keys. This can lead to misinterpretations. I think you should find all stack manipulations on ENTER, RDOWN and x<>y. Then you might even get Walther excited about this keyboard layout, it's allowed to have dreams. For example, the free space on the cursor keys could be filled with a new functionality, jump to the first item / menu, jump to the last item / menu. Of course not yet, as this has not yet been defined and implemented.
My opinion is: As useful as the functions DROP and FILL are, I think they are mainly needed for programming. So it doesn't matter if you only find these functions in the menu. With the new HOME function, you can get to these menus very clearly.
Wish: Here I argue in the other direction. Even though you can solve LASTx via RCL L, I want to have LASTx directly on one button, old habits. I often use LASTx, RDOWN for example mostly only in programs.
Note: I don't like the CPX position, this menu could be set to g-ENTER, DROP is gone.....
Another urgent wish: Whenever there is a function and a menu on the shift keys, I would prefer to have the function always on f and the menu on g, even if the original functionality of the 42S would change from f() to g(). That wouldn't bother me at all. An example. With the 42S, the CLX is hidden in the CLEAR menu. If you want to cancel the number input because you find out that you are typing wrong, I don't have direct access to the CLX, as it still is with the 41C. I think the "Undo" function would behave like the CLX in such a situation, and you could easily reach it via f(<-).
So much for the topic right now.
Best regards Dani