From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Confused by y-or-n-p Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:24:17 -0500 Message-ID: References: <834kkcr1eo.fsf@gnu.org> <43b24209-fa65-0e26-7cbd-f99175a7ffd8@gmx.at> <87wnx7j5is.fsf@mail.linkov.net> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=Utf-8 Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32640"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Juri Linkov , rudalics@gmx.at Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 26 11:26:56 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kt6mj-0008Ig-3i for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 11:26:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44354 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kt6mi-0005Ih-7g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:26:52 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49884) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kt6kF-0001ls-F7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60221) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kt6kF-0000gr-5r; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1kt6kD-0000w5-UG; Sat, 26 Dec 2020 05:24:18 -0500 In-Reply-To: <87wnx7j5is.fsf@mail.linkov.net> (message from Juri Linkov on Thu, 24 Dec 2020 22:47:07 +0200) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:261819 Archived-At: [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] > Still I'd suggest to allow users to > > separately choose for both, 'y-or-n-p' _and_ 'yes-or-no-p' dialogues, > > whether they want Emacs to handle them in a modal or non-modal way. That would have these drawbacks * It would mean extra complexity to debug, maintain, and document * It would not directly provide the old behavior, only a basis for it. People who want that would have to implement that. Does anyone really WANT this generality, or is it generality for generality's sake? > Indeed. Here is a possible way to make the minibuffer modal: > (defun minibuffer-lock () > (when (active-minibuffer-window) > (select-window (active-minibuffer-window)))) I am not sure what behavior that would give. But I think it is NOT the behavior that y-or-n-p used to have, which was to reject unexpected answers. What was the reason for implementing this change in the single-character-answer commands? Who actually wanted the change in behavior? And for what use cases? If people really like the new behavior, I won't argue against it. But maybe we should turn it off by default, like recursive minibuffers. -- Dr Richard Stallman Chief GNUisance of the GNU Project (https://gnu.org) Founder, Free Software Foundation (https://fsf.org) Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)