bug#32037: simplify possessive form's "functions' definitions"

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Van L <van@scratch.space>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 01:11:00 +1000
> 
> diff --git a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi 
> b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
> index be3e938b24..82c49bf693 100644
> --- a/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
> +++ b/doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi
> @@ -3028,7 +3028,7 @@ Primitive Functions
>  @cindex Primitives written in C
>  All functions are defined in terms of other functions, except for a few
>  @dfn{primitive} functions that are written in the C programming
> -language.  When you write functions' definitions, you will write them in
> +language.  When you write function definitions, you will write them in
>  Emacs Lisp and use other functions as your building blocks.  Some of the
>  functions you will use will themselves be written in Emacs Lisp (perhaps
>  by you) and some will be primitives written in C@.  The primitive
> @@ -3179,7 +3179,7 @@ defun
>  
>  @findex * @r{(multiplication)}
>  The third line of the example consists of the body of the function
> -definition.  (Most functions' definitions, of course, are longer than
> +definition.  (Most function definitions, of course, are longer than
>  this.)  In this function, the body is the list, @code{(* 7 number)}, which
>  says to multiply the value of @var{number} by 7.  (In Emacs Lisp,
>  @code{*} is the function for multiplication, just as @code{+} is the

Thanks, but AFAIK the original wording is perfectly correct English
(if not more correct).  Why did you think it needed to be changed?