Re: reveal-filename

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 22:02:31 -0400
> 
> >> Could we find some other name for this function?
> > You are welcome to suggest any name you like.  The only semi-important
> > consideration I had in mind was not to have too long a name, so as not
> > to require reformatting of too many lines in Makefile.in files.
> 
> How 'bout `unmsys--filename'?

Fine with me.

> >> "Produce the real file name for FILE" isn't sufficiently descriptive
> >> to decide when it's buggy and when it's not.
> > That's unfair: the doc string does explain what this function does.
> > You quoted only the first line of the doc string.
> 
> I didn't mean to criticize, sorry.  I just mean that a function with
> such a "clean" name should have a "clean" specification of what it
> should do, at a higher level than describing its current behavior under
> various OSes.  I don't think coming up with such a description is easy,
> but I suspect it's not needed either and a less clean name (such as the
> one O suggested above) would work just fine.

The description that's already there is all there is to tell:

    "Produce the real file name for FILE.

  On systems other than MS-Windows, just returns FILE.
  On MS-Windows, converts /d/foo/bar form of file names
  passed by MSYS Make into d:/foo/bar that Emacs can grok.

  This function is called from lisp/Makefile."

What did you find missing from this description?