From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10319: 24.0.92; doc string of `file-remote-p' Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:02:53 -0800 Message-ID: <1C247F238CC24F6F9A0A3D077D3E09FE@us.oracle.com> References: <87wr9uuvn3.fsf@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1324220606 15995 80.91.229.12 (18 Dec 2011 15:03:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10319@debbugs.gnu.org To: "'Michael Albinus'" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 18 16:03:21 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIGn-0006Ix-Ip for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:03:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:42147 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIGm-0007zr-7m for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:03:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:47533) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIGj-0007zl-CT for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:03:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIGh-0007nq-K1 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:03:17 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:42504) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIGh-0007ng-H4 for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:03:15 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIIQ-0006oS-1e for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:05:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: "Drew Adams" Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:05:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 10319 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 10319-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B10319.132422069626176 (code B ref 10319); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:05:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10319) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Dec 2011 15:04:56 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIII-0006o8-T2 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:04:55 -0500 Original-Received: from acsinet15.oracle.com ([141.146.126.227]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RcIIG-0006o0-Ie for 10319@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:04:53 -0500 Original-Received: from ucsinet22.oracle.com (ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94]) by acsinet15.oracle.com (Switch-3.4.4/Switch-3.4.4) with ESMTP id pBIF336H017146 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:03:04 GMT Original-Received: from acsmt357.oracle.com (acsmt357.oracle.com [141.146.40.157]) by ucsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBIF322U017420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 15:03:02 GMT Original-Received: from abhmt109.oracle.com (abhmt109.oracle.com [141.146.116.61]) by acsmt357.oracle.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id pBIF32Sh014032; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:03:02 -0600 Original-Received: from dradamslap1 (/10.159.55.81) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:03:01 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <87wr9uuvn3.fsf@gmx.de> Thread-Index: Acy9X7hjhDYEx5SPSkmeKhcCcD5oUwANCZdA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157 X-Source-IP: ucsinet22.oracle.com [156.151.31.94] X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090204.4EEE00A8.0095,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:05:02 -0500 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:55043 Archived-At: > > "`file-remote-p' will never open a connection on its own." > > > > What could "on its own" possibly mean here. This function > > can invoke a handler, which can open a connection. So > > this function can open a connection. We don't distinguish > > what the implementation of a function does from what the > > function does. If the code in the body of `file-remote-p' > > ends up opening a connection, then `file-remote-p' opens > > a connection. > > the intention is exactly as said: any implementation of > `file-remote-p' shall not open a new remote connection, > if it is not established yet. I didn't understand that from the phrase used. I thought that it somehow was referring to the fact that the handler might open a new connection, and that that wouldn't be `file-remote-p' doing so "on its own". But if a given connection has already been established, and if `file-remote-p' then (re-)opens it, it is not a "new" connection. Or maybe I'm missing something else (maybe a difference between open and establish?). So even your better explanation here leaves me a little confused. Do you just want to say that `file-remote-p' never opens a new connection (i.e., a connection that is not already established/open)? If so, let's just say that: It never opens a new remote connection. It can only reuse a connection that is already open. If not, then I'm afraid I'm still confused about the behavior (I'm no expert on remote connection) and what we are trying to say about it. > > You are probably trying to say something useful here > > (what?), but so far you have not said anything useful > > by this sentence. And it misleads. > > The wording comes from me. If there are better ways to say > this, please propose. I'm not a native English speaker. I understand, and will try to propose something, once I understand what we're really trying to say. Can the handler establish a _new_ connection? If so, then `file-remote-p' can do so. If not, then can't we just say that `file-remote-p' never establishes (opens) a new connection? Let me know what the point is - what we're trying to communicate about opening connections, and once I understand that I can make a suggestion wrt wording. Thx.