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

[Stefan Monnier]

> I've sent plenty of patches, throughout "all these years", as you know.

No, I do not think you've sent plenty of them.  Especially not
docstring patches.

> If you need a patch to change `t' to `non-nil' then there is a problem.

You've overlooked the "and even  install them yourself" part.

> But it's not the lack of a patch that prevents you from making this
> doc change, obviously.  You do not _want_ to make it.

The docstring you quoted has a clear meaning of "undocumented behavior
for non-nil and non-t values".  I do not know whether that was the
intention of the original author and do not care to figure it out, so no
I don't want to install such a patch.  But if someone else wants to,
I won't oppose it.

> 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.  So be it.

Saying this explicitly everywhere we rely on it would be silly.
It's a general rule that applies to all software I know.


        Stefan