From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Null filename ("") is considered to correspond to an existing, readable, and writable file? Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 10:51:16 -0800 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1136314434 29932 80.91.229.2 (3 Jan 2006 18:53:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 18:53:54 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 03 19:53:52 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrHy-0004GP-97 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:53:43 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrJb-0000In-Ns for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:55:23 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrHr-0008Bi-8b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:53:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrHg-00086b-4I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:53:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EtrHf-00086U-Jn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:53:23 -0500 Original-Received: from [148.87.122.30] (helo=rgminet01.oracle.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA:24) (Exim 4.34) id 1EtrIq-0002lV-H3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 03 Jan 2006 13:54:37 -0500 Original-Received: from rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.50]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.6/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id k03IpHnr010806 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:51:17 -0700 Original-Received: from rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k03IpGLX005495 for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Original-Received: from dradamslap (dradams-lap.us.oracle.com [130.35.177.126]) by rgmsgw301.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with SMTP id k03IpGGs005484 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:51:16 -0700 Original-To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Importance: Normal X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:48666 Archived-At: In "Relative File Names" we read: In "File Name Expansion" we read: -- Variable: default-directory Could you please state what is unclear in these fragments? They are clear, as far as they go. As I said, the definition of relative is essentially "every name that is not absolute". That is fine as a definition, but it would be clearer to also explicitly point out that a null name ("") is relative, because it does not start with... It's not needed for the quasi-formal definition, but it is helpful as documentation. That is all. So what _is_ the question at hand, wrt the manual(s)? 1) See above. 2) The doc (both doc strings and manual blurb) for the functions mentioned should explicitly describe the file-name argument, saying that a) it can be relative or absolute, and reminding readers that b) "" is a relative name, so that the function returns non-nil, because it tests the directory. Such a reminder of the definition of relative might not be needed for each function in the manual that takes a file-name arg, but these functions, because of their names, encourage misinterpretation wrt "". > > Sorry, I still don't get it. Why is the design like this? > > This was discussed here some months ago, although I > couldn't find that thread in the few minutes I had to > look for it. > > I already said that I assumed this was "by design". I asked > what the design _advantage_ is. No answer, so far. I tried to provide a pointer to the answer: if you find and read those discussions, you might find it. I didn't necessarily need a thank-you, but something less unkind would be nice. I don't see anything unkind in my reply (certainly nothing unkind was meant) or particularly helpful in your pointer. Like you, I don't have the time to scour the posts of the past "some months" (looking for what keywords?). I don't expect anyone to do that. If the advantage of this design was discussed (I must have missed it), someone must be able to summarize the rationale.