GNU bug report logs -
#23643
25.0.50; Documentation of file-name-sans-extension seems wrong
Previous Next
Reported by: Thomas Emile Bourgeat <bthom <at> mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 02:22:01 UTC
Severity: minor
Found in version 25.0.50
Done: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
View this message in rfc822 format
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Your message dated Sun, 29 May 2016 18:02:22 +0300
with message-id <838tysykjl.fsf <at> gnu.org>
and subject line Re: bug#23643: 25.0.50; Documentation of file-name-sans-extension seems wrong
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #23643,
regarding 25.0.50; Documentation of file-name-sans-extension seems wrong
to be marked as done.
(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs <at> gnu.org.)
--
23643: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=23643
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems
[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]
(file-name-sans-extension "foo.bar") produces "foo" when the
documentation suggests it should produce "foo.":
> Return FILENAME sans final "extension".
> The extension, in a file name, is the part that follows the last ‘.’,
> except that a leading ‘.’, if any, doesn’t count.
In GNU Emacs 25.0.50.1 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, GTK+ Version 2.24.25)
of 2015-10-30
Repository revision: 9c36df736b89490d14a5b5109c9c00209a0c25f5
Windowing system distributor 'The X.Org Foundation', version 11.0.11604000
System Description: Debian GNU/Linux 8.4 (jessie)
Configured features:
XPM JPEG TIFF GIF PNG SOUND GSETTINGS NOTIFY LIBXML2 FREETYPE XFT ZLIB
TOOLKIT_SCROLL_BARS GTK2 X11
[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]
> From: Thomas Emile Bourgeat <bthom <at> mit.edu>
> Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 22:04:40 -0400
>
> (file-name-sans-extension "foo.bar") produces "foo" when the
> documentation suggests it should produce "foo.":
>
> > Return FILENAME sans final "extension".
> > The extension, in a file name, is the part that follows the last ‘.’,
> > except that a leading ‘.’, if any, doesn’t count.
Thanks for the report. I'm not quite sure which part of the doc
string led you to believe that "foo." should be produced: the
"follows" part or the "leading `.'" part. So I went ahead and
clarified both for the next release.
This bug report was last modified 8 years and 353 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.