From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Albinus Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#10319: 24.0.92; doc string of `file-remote-p' Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:33:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87wr9uuvn3.fsf@gmx.de> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1324197266 4118 80.91.229.12 (18 Dec 2011 08:34:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:34:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: 10319@debbugs.gnu.org To: "Drew Adams" Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Dec 18 09:34:22 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 1RcCCL-0007ng-VC for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:34:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60406 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcCCK-0001ix-HX for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:34:20 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34867) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcCCH-0001is-Ss for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:34:18 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcCCG-0001Mc-RI for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:34:17 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:41884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RcCCG-0001MY-OX for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:34:16 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RcCDx-0005lU-Qf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:36:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Albinus Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:36:01 +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=B10319.132419731622098 (code B ref 10319); Sun, 18 Dec 2011 08:36:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 10319) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Dec 2011 08:35:16 +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 1RcCDD-0005kN-Pq for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:35:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RcCDB-0005kF-Kz for 10319@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:35:14 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2011 08:33:26 -0000 Original-Received: from p57BB9CB5.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO detlef.gmx.de) [87.187.156.181] by mail.gmx.net (mp033) with SMTP; 18 Dec 2011 09:33:26 +0100 X-Authenticated: #3708877 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19z2TQhrTVzteulDAkA6u9MlA/z1POtOXR4opP3QC 7W4DR/F3clz9XC In-Reply-To: (Drew Adams's message of "Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:17:38 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:36:01 -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:55041 Archived-At: "Drew Adams" writes: > This part means nothing, and is misleading: > > "`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. > 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. Best regards, Michael.