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

[Drew Adams]

    >     > Besides, where is the section of the manual that says that,
    >     > unless stated otherwise, all file-name arguments to functions
    >     > are relative
    >
    >     This is a basic notion of every filesystem: every file is
    >     relative to the current directory, unless it begins with the
    >     root directory string.  I don't thing the Emacs manual should
    >     teach such basics.
    >
    > That every file is relative to its directory is not the question.

    Perhaps it isn't, but your wording (above) suggested it was.  I'm
    sure, if you re-read it, you will agree that it could be interpreted
    like that.  Which is why I replied as I did.

I think you make my point.

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".

My question says exactly what it means, but, as you point out, it is
possible to misread it (or to read it differently). That's exactly the point
I tried to make about the manual's definition of "relative file name" - it
is correct, but its implication for a null name ("") might not be clearly
understood by reading it.

If I had emphasized that I was speaking of file-name _arguments_, my
question might have been clearer. If the definition of "relative file name"
emphasizes the implication for "", it will be clearer.