bug#24150: 26.0.50; New command: dired-create-empty-file

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:13:52 +0900 (JST)
> cc: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>, psainty@orcon.net.nz, 
>     tzz@lifelogs.com, clement.pit@gmail.com, michael.albinus@gmx.de, 
>     24150@debbugs.gnu.org, sdl.web@gmail.com
> 
> > I think the doc strings do need to say that the file name is
> > added/modified in the Dired buffer, but that's a separate issue.
> > Maybe to make the doc string of dired-create-empty-file hint at that,
> > instead "create empty file" say something like "add an empty file to
> > the current directory"?
> That could suggest that we just add an entry in Dired (not writing to 
> disk).

No, I don't think so: "add a file to a directory" doesn't mention
Dired at all.  But if it confused you, maybe others could be confused
as well.

> How about following two (first with long forst line, second split it in 
> 2):
> 
> "Create an empty file called FILE, add a new entry for it in the Dired 
> buffer.
> Parent directories of FILE are created as needed.
> If FILE already exists, signal an error."
> 
> 
> "Create an empty file called FILE.
> Add a new entry for it in the Dired buffer.
> Parent directories of FILE are created as needed.
> If FILE already exists, signal an error."

The second one is better, IMO.  But instead of "it", I'd say "the new
file" or "the created file".

Thanks.