|
From: | Drew Adams |
Subject: | RE: Null filename ("") is considered to correspond to an existing, readable, and writable file? |
Date: | Tue, 3 Jan 2006 11:23:29 -0800 |
> My question was stated carefully in terms of "all file-name > arguments to functions", but you misread it as "all files" > or perhaps "all file names". If that is the misreading, then I'd say it's not a misreading at all: since file-name arguments _are_supposed_to_be_ file names, it is only natural to assume it's clear to the reader that what applies to file names applies also to the file-name arguments of file-related functions. A function that takes a file name as an argument could take that argument in any form whatsoever - it could even expect it to be encrypted. My point was that the doc of a function should document what the arguments are. But let's drop it. Sorry for the noise. Happy New Year.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |