Re: Elisp string function question

[Michael Heerdegen <michael_heerdegen@web.de>]

Ergus <spacibba@aol.com> writes:

> I just tried and this:
>
> (string-empty-p nil) returns nil. But nil is not an non-empty
> string. This forces to add some
> extra checks when using this function.
>
> Is this intended? 

BTW, I'm just curious: If this was changed to return non-nil and
somebody in the future would ask

> I just tried and this:
>
> (string-empty-p nil) returns t. But nil is not an empty
> string.

what would you respond?  This is not a trick question, because the
predicate can be used to test for an empty as well as for an non-empty
string.

And if `string-empty-p' would be changed to error for symbol arguments,
this would still require extra tests to avoid that error.  So how would
you change things for the better?

Michael.