> 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? I don't mind that. -- Kaushal Modi On Sep 4, 2015 7:03 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > Marcin Borkowski writes: > > > On 2015-09-04, at 11:26, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > >> Eli Zaretskii 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 >