Re: yes-or-no-p prompt conditionally broken in master?

[David Kastrup]

Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2015-09-04, at 11:26, Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Any objections to removing yes-or-no-p (with a defalias for backward
>>> compatibility, of course) and making y-or-n-p serve both duties,
>>> controlled by some defcustom?
>>
>> That doesn't make sense.  They implement different intented meaning.
>
> +1.  They serve different purposes, and they are both needed.  At the
> same time.  While I understand that someone might want to make
> yes-or-no-p behave like y-or-n-p all the time, someone else (like, say,
> me) might want to use y-or-n-p in places where just a confirmation is
> a nice thing to have, and yes-or-no-p in places where you really want to
> make sure that the user does not accidentally press `y'.

Not just 'y'.  y-or-n-p is quite apt to turn any kind of typeahead into
an unintended answer.  From its DOC string:

    No confirmation of the answer is requested; a single character is
    enough.  SPC also means yes, and DEL means no.

-- 
David Kastrup