From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Documentation of `file-name-completion' is somewhat confusing Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:58:41 +0300 Message-ID: <83li6gkpb2.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1371005924 23928 80.91.229.3 (12 Jun 2013 02:58:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 02:58:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Xue Fuqiao Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 12 04:58:44 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UmbGl-0000UA-Nq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:58:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41592 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmbGl-00061t-2f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:58:43 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59756) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmbGg-00061Y-LX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:58:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmbGf-0006yk-PV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:58:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il ([80.179.55.169]:49672) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UmbGf-0006yb-Gw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:58:37 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MO900200EVIRZ00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:58:36 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MO90028PEXNHP80@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:58:36 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:160364 Archived-At: > Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:07:37 +0800 > From: Xue Fuqiao > > In (info "(elisp) File Name Completion"): > -- Function: file-name-completion filename directory &optional > predicate > [...] > If PREDICATE is non-`nil' then it ignores possible completions that > don't satisfy PREDICATE, after calling that function with one > argument, the expanded absolute file name. > > And in the doc string of this function: > If PREDICATE is non-nil, call PREDICATE with each possible > completion (in absolute form) and ignore it if PREDICATE returns > nil. > > It seems to me that the arguments of PREDICATE described by these two > paragraphs don't agree with each other: the first one is "the expanded > absolute file name", but the second one is "each possible completion". > IMHO the latter is more appropriate. Or maybe I got something wrong. > Any ideas? Why do you think that "expanded absolute file name" of a "possible completion" and "each possible completion (in absolute form)" are anything but the same thing? Where exactly do you see the difference between these two?