From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: yes-or-no-p prompt conditionally broken in master? Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 20:56:46 +0300 Message-ID: <83lhcm83vl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83fv2v9y9z.fsf@gnu.org> <57355235-9af7-49fb-81b5-93182cfc9d49@default> <83a8t39x3t.fsf@gnu.org> <83zj128slp.fsf@gnu.org> <87k2s6o7qh.fsf@igel.home> <83wpw68j2n.fsf@gnu.org> <871teenysf.fsf@igel.home> <83r3me8ho3.fsf@gnu.org> <20150904133439.GB2991@acm.fritz.box> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1441389434 27413 80.91.229.3 (4 Sep 2015 17:57:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:57:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: kaushal.modi@gmail.com, bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, schwab@linux-m68k.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, dgutov@yandex.ru, drew.adams@oracle.com To: Alan Mackenzie Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 04 19:57:04 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXvET-0000Eo-Ee for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 19:57:01 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34001 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXvES-0007aK-Pn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:57:00 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56637) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXvEF-0007a7-7M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:56:48 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXvEB-0004QL-VV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:56:47 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:41686) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXvEB-0004PT-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:56:43 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NU500D00YX5XK00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 20:56:42 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NU500DSJZ6HVV20@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 20:56:42 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <20150904133439.GB2991@acm.fritz.box> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:189605 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:34:39 +0000 > Cc: Andreas Schwab , kaushal.modi@gmail.com, > bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > dgutov@yandex.ru, drew.adams@oracle.com > From: Alan Mackenzie > > > Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing: the signature of > > both functions and the return value are the same. What I propose is > > to change the body so that it could act like one or the other, > > depending on the value of some defcustom. > > I know I'm a bit late to this thread, but I find the above worrying, > depending on the "depending". > > If the defcustom has three values "Always-y-or-n", "Always-yes-or-no", > "depends-on-the-particular-invocation", I'm fine. With just the first > two alternatives, I wouldn't like it. The intent is to provide a predicate defcustom that allows to cause yes-or-no-p behave like y-or-n-p. y-or-n-p will always behave as it does, and I didn't intend to change that, as I don't see the use case for that. If you still want the 3rd alternative, please describe the use cases that would need it. > I'm wondering whether coalescing these two function is more trouble than > it's worth. Please don't worry about the implementation aspects. It's not rocket science in any case.