bug#10057: 24.0.91; doc string of `Info-find-file'

[Drew Adams]

> > Not according to Stefan's "general rule": According to 
> > that, omission indicates clearly to everyone that that
> > the behavior is unpredictable and unsupported.
> 
> That's a misrepresentation of what Stefan said. 

No, I don't think so:

>> You apparently want a non-nil, non-t value to implicitly be
>> considered unpredictable and unsupported ("you're on your own"),
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> for the benefit of "future compatibility", and you apparently
>> do not want to tell users that explicitly.
>
> Saying this explicitly everywhere we rely on it would be silly.
> It's a general rule that applies to all software I know.

What part of what he said does _not_ confirm that he claims that omission
implicitly indicates to readers that the behavior is unpredictable and
unsupported?

And again:

> Well, [the doc string] does say that if you use a non-nil
> and non-t value, you're on your own.

The doc string says nothing explicit about non-nil and non-t.
His claim is that it says this implicitly, by omission.