RE: Null filename ("") is considered to correspond to an existing, readable, and writable file?

[Drew Adams]

    > 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.