GNU bug report logs - #10319
24.0.92; doc string of `file-remote-p'

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: "Drew Adams" <drew.adams <at> oracle.com>
To: "'Michael Albinus'" <michael.albinus <at> gmx.de>
Cc: 10319 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#10319: 24.0.92; doc string of `file-remote-p'
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 07:02:53 -0800

> > "`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.

I didn't understand that from the phrase used.  I thought
that it somehow was referring to the fact that the handler
might open a new connection, and that that wouldn't be
`file-remote-p' doing so "on its own".

But if a given connection has already been established,
and if `file-remote-p' then (re-)opens it, it is not a
"new" connection.  Or maybe I'm missing something else
(maybe a difference between open and establish?).  So
even your better explanation here leaves me a little
confused.

Do you just want to say that `file-remote-p' never opens
a new connection (i.e., a connection that is not already
established/open)?

If so, let's just say that: It never opens a new remote
connection.  It can only reuse a connection that is
already open.

If not, then I'm afraid I'm still confused about the
behavior (I'm no expert on remote connection) and what we
are trying to say about it.

> > 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.

I understand, and will try to propose something, once I
understand what we're really trying to say.  Can the handler
establish a _new_ connection?  If so, then `file-remote-p'
can do so. If not, then can't we just say that
`file-remote-p' never establishes (opens) a new connection?

Let me know what the point is - what we're trying to
communicate about opening connections, and once I understand
that I can make a suggestion wrt wording.  Thx.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.