Re: kill-matching-buffers without confirmation

[Clément Pit-Claudel]

On 2017-05-22 15:00, Kaushal Modi wrote:
> A defcustom seems too risky for this. A user can unknowingly copy that var 
> from somewhere and then end up killing modified buffers without confirmation.

I don't think we've applied such a standard before: we have multiple other 
variables that disable confirmation prompts, like 
confirm-nonexistent-file-or-buffer, confirm-kill-processes or 
kill-buffer-query-functions.

> Add a new defun that just sets the new optional arg to non-nil value is less 
> risky as the user would then be knowingly calling the risky variant.

Isn't there a similar risk of a user unknowingly copying code that rebinds the 
default binding to the risky variant?

Cheers,
Clément.