[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: yes-or-no-p prompt conditionally broken in master?
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:42:55 -0700 (PDT)

> That's awesome! So I believe it will be something like this?
> (defcustom yes-or-no-quick nil)
> ;; yes-or-no-p now implemented in elisp instead of C
> (defun yes-or-no-p (prompt)
>   (if yes-or-no-p-quick
>       (progn
>          ;; y-or-n-p implementation
>         )
>      (progn
>         ;; legacy yes-or-no-p implementation
>         )))
> ;; y-or-n-p redefined
> (defun y-or-n-p (prompt)
>   (let ((yes-or-no-quick t))
>      (yes-or-no-p prompt)))

Certainly not.  Although Eli expressed himself very poorly
in his proposal, I don't think that is what he meant (I
certainly hope not).

Presumably the defcustom would allow at least 3 possibilities:

1. Always use the traditional y-or-n-p behavior.
2. Always use the traditional yes-or-no-p behavior.
3. Always respect whichever behavior is expressed in the call.

#3 would be equivalent to the out-of-the-box behavior today.
With #3 the behavior in one code context could be like y-or-n-p
and in a different context it could be like yes-or-no-p.

At least this is what I hope he meant.  What he actually said
can, however, give the impression that only possibilites #1
and #2 would exist.  I cannot believe that is what he meant,
given his other posts about Emacs carefully judging which
behavior to code in any given context.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> wrote:
Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: Andreas Schwab <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,  
>> address@hidden,  address@hidden
>> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:26:46 +0200
>> 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.
> Sorry, I lost you: what different meaning is that?

(elisp) Yes-or-No Queries


Andreas Schwab, address@hidden
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]