[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#24150: 26.0.50; New command: dired-create-empty-file
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#24150: 26.0.50; New command: dired-create-empty-file |
Date: |
Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:56:49 +0300 |
> From: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 16:13:52 +0900 (JST)
> cc: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>, psainty@orcon.net.nz,
> tzz@lifelogs.com, clement.pit@gmail.com, michael.albinus@gmx.de,
> 24150@debbugs.gnu.org, sdl.web@gmail.com
>
> > I think the doc strings do need to say that the file name is
> > added/modified in the Dired buffer, but that's a separate issue.
> > Maybe to make the doc string of dired-create-empty-file hint at that,
> > instead "create empty file" say something like "add an empty file to
> > the current directory"?
> That could suggest that we just add an entry in Dired (not writing to
> disk).
No, I don't think so: "add a file to a directory" doesn't mention
Dired at all. But if it confused you, maybe others could be confused
as well.
> How about following two (first with long forst line, second split it in
> 2):
>
> "Create an empty file called FILE, add a new entry for it in the Dired
> buffer.
> Parent directories of FILE are created as needed.
> If FILE already exists, signal an error."
>
>
> "Create an empty file called FILE.
> Add a new entry for it in the Dired buffer.
> Parent directories of FILE are created as needed.
> If FILE already exists, signal an error."
The second one is better, IMO. But instead of "it", I'd say "the new
file" or "the created file".
Thanks.