чт, 28 февр. 2019 г. в 01:24, Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>:

> > > The problem is that docstrings describe the behavior of a specific
> > function, so they usually don't mention the more general aspects that
> > affect all functions of a given subsystem, such as here the general
> > treatment of the empty string when used as a file name. Otherwise,
> > every file-name-manipulating function would have to repeat this
> > information in its docstring.
> >
> > So, maybe FILENAME argument at least could be renamed to NAME to give
> > at least some hint that this is not a filename, but just a name hint
> > which will be expanded and canonised to real filename?
>
> That's not good enough.  It might make sense
> to you now, now that you know something about
> how the input is interpreted as a file name.
>
> The parameter name FILENAME is more appropriate
> than NAME.  But the doc string should say more
> about it.  You can't rely on just the parameter
> name to convey all of the meaning that you're
> (now) reading into it.
>

But what to do with `file-name-directory` function, which returns `nil` to
empty string, while `file-exists-p` returns `t', and both of them gets
FILENAME as argument ?

-- 
lg