> Well, we could have one function bind the defcustom and then call the
other one. Then we won't even need a defalias for backward
compatibility.
That's awesome! So I believe it will be something like this?
<psuedocode follows>
(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)))
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
>> Cc: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, kaushal.modi@gmail.com, dgutov@yandex.ru, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:26:46 +0200
>>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> 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.
--
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."