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

[Marcin Borkowski]

On 2015-09-04, at 14:30, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:

>> From: Marcin Borkowski <address@hidden>
>> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:32:04 +0200
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>
> This is a misunderstanding: I didn't suggest to remove any
> functionality.  You will still be able to do exactly what each of
> these functions do, just their implementation will be in a single
> function.

I see.  Sorry.

>> 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'.
>
> That's a no-brainer, and I never said anything to the contrary.

Great!

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science
Adam Mickiewicz University