Undo 2012-03-06T08:22:42Z!rgm@gnu.org

* lisp/files.el (locate-dominating-file, dir-locals-find-file):
Undo 2012-03-06 change.

lisp/ChangeLog

+2012-03-08  Glenn Morris  <rgm@gnu.org>
+
+	* files.el (locate-dominating-file, dir-locals-find-file):
+	Undo 2012-03-06 change.
+
 2012-03-07  Eli Zaretskii  <eliz@gnu.org>
 
 	* international/quail.el (quail-help): Force

lisp/files.el

@@ -877,14 +877,13 @@ or mount points potentially requiring authentication as a different user.")
 ;;               (setq dir nil))))
 ;;       nil)))
 
-(defun locate-dominating-file (file name &optional predicate)
+(defun locate-dominating-file (file name)
   "Look up the directory hierarchy from FILE for a file named NAME.
 Stop at the first parent directory containing a file NAME,
 and return the directory.  Return nil if not found.
 
-Optional argument PREDICATE is a function of one argument, a file.
-It should return non-nil if the file is acceptable.  The default is
-`file-exists-p'; you might, e.g., want to use `file-readable-p' instead."
+This function only tests if FILE exists.  If you care about whether
+it is readable, regular, etc., you should test the result."
   ;; We used to use the above locate-dominating-files code, but the
   ;; directory-files call is very costly, so we're much better off doing
   ;; multiple calls using the code in here.
@@ -911,8 +910,11 @@ It should return non-nil if the file is acceptable.  The default is
                     ;;   (setq user (nth 2 (file-attributes file)))
                     ;;   (and prev-user (not (equal user prev-user))))
                     (string-match locate-dominating-stop-dir-regexp file)))
-      (setq try (funcall (or predicate 'file-exists-p)
-			 (expand-file-name name file)))
+      ;; FIXME? maybe this function should (optionally?)
+      ;; use file-readable-p instead.  In many cases, an unreadable
+      ;; FILE is no better than a non-existent one.
+      ;; See eg dir-locals-find-file.
+      (setq try (file-exists-p (expand-file-name name file)))
       (cond (try (setq root file))
             ((equal file (setq file (file-name-directory
                                      (directory-file-name file))))
@@ -3550,7 +3552,7 @@ across different environments and users.")
   "Find the directory-local variables for FILE.
 This searches upward in the directory tree from FILE.
 It stops at the first directory that has been registered in
-`dir-locals-directory-cache' or contains a readable `dir-locals-file'.
+`dir-locals-directory-cache' or contains a `dir-locals-file'.
 If it finds an entry in the cache, it checks that it is valid.
 A cache entry with no modification time element (normally, one that
 has been assigned directly using `dir-locals-set-directory-class', not
@@ -3568,15 +3570,17 @@ of no valid cache entry."
 	  (if (eq system-type 'ms-dos)
 	      (dosified-file-name dir-locals-file)
 	    dir-locals-file))
-	 ;; FIXME?  Is it right to silently ignore unreadable files?
-	 (locals-file (locate-dominating-file file dir-locals-file-name
-					      (lambda (file)
-						(and (file-readable-p file)
-						     (file-regular-p file)))))
+	 (locals-file (locate-dominating-file file dir-locals-file-name))
 	 (dir-elt nil))
     ;; `locate-dominating-file' may have abbreviated the name.
-    (if locals-file
-	(setq locals-file (expand-file-name dir-locals-file-name locals-file)))
+    (and locals-file
+	 (setq locals-file (expand-file-name dir-locals-file-name locals-file))
+	 ;; FIXME? is it right to silently ignore an unreadable file?
+	 ;; Maybe we'd want to keep searching in that case.
+	 ;; That is a locate-dominating-file issue.
+	 (or (not (file-readable-p locals-file))
+	     (not (file-regular-p locals-file)))
+	 (setq locals-file nil))
     ;; Find the best cached value in `dir-locals-directory-cache'.
     (dolist (elt dir-locals-directory-cache)
       (when (and (eq t (compare-strings file nil (length (car elt))