bug#43961: read carefully: dired-file-name-at-point vs dired-filename-at-point

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@gmx.com> writes:

>> Why not just have one call the other, and wrap the results in
>> abbreviate-file-name?
>
> You could, but you wouldn't be saving anything since the inner function
> would still need to perform the expansion, so for the abbreviated
> function you end up in effect with an inefficient (abbrev (expand file))
> instead of a choice between (abbrev file) or (expand file).

It's not about code efficiency -- whether this function is efficient or
not doesn't make any difference, since we'd deprecate it, and change the
callers.

> Also, much of the change ends up being defaliases, docstrings and
> deprecation notices, so its more clearly presented without nesting
> functions.

Sorry, I don't think this is a good change.  Renaming these functions
just because we have two almost identical ones (when we should just
remove one of them) doesn't make much sense.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no