Quoth Jani Nikula on Dec 12 at 11:13 pm: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 00:53:05 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:50:04 +0200, Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org> wrote: > > > +If set to nil (the default), new mail is processed by invoking > > > +\"notmuch new\". Otherwise, this should be set to a string that > > > +gives the name of an external script that processes new mail. If > > > +set to the empty string, no command will be run. > > > > I think this should be "an empty string". But I may be mistaking. > > Shameless copy paste from a native speaker, who am I to argue? :) > Austin? Either way is grammatically correct. Really, this is a philosophical question. Can two empty strings have different identities? Or is there only one empty string in the universe? (eq "" "") => t (eq "" (string)) => t (eq "" (make-string 0 ?a)) => t (eq "" (substring "a" 1)) => t It would appear Elisp is squarely in the "there is one empty string" camp, so "the empty string" would be more correct.