Subject: bug#76055: 29.4; Doc of string-empty-p

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 21:44:18 +0200

> From: Drew Adams <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>,
>         "[email-masked]"
> 	<[email-masked]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:49:52 +0000
> 
> > > > Doesn't sound like a reason good enough to say potentially confusing
> > > > things in a doc string.
> > > >
> > > > So no, still no justification and still no other opinions except
> > > > yours.
> > >
> > > What's "potentially confusing" about the doc
> > > saying exactly what the doc of `string=' says
> > > about this oddity (corner case)?
> > 
> > The fact that the "empty string" notion is
> > applied to symbols, of course.
> 
> That's not confusion from the doc.  It's from
> the function that the doc describes.

A doc string is always supposed to describe its function.

> What's unexpected and possibly confusing is
> that the function _does_ apply that "notion"
> to symbols, as well as strings.

Like I said at the very beginning: this is not intentional.  It is
just a side effect of the implementation.

> Which is why it's important for the function's doc to tell you about
> this oddity.

No, it's the other way around.  Which I also said at the very
beginning.

So we have now completed a full circle, which is a clear sign that
this discussion exhausted itself, and should be discontinued.

> The current doc gives the impression that
> for a symbol (as for other non-strings) the
> predicate would raise an error. 

Actually, the current doc string says nothing at all about what would
happen if you call the function with a symbol as its argument.