> 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)))



On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 8:40 AM Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:

> 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."
>