[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#51661: 29.0.50; What is "interactive Lisp closure"?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#51661: 29.0.50; What is "interactive Lisp closure"? |
Date: |
Sun, 07 Nov 2021 16:06:33 +0200 |
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: 51661@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 14:55:54 +0100
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > To reproduce:
> >
> > emacs -Q
> > C-h f emoji-insert RET
> >
> > This says:
> >
> > emoji-insert is an autoloaded interactive Lisp closure in ‘emoji.el’.
> >
> > Other commands still say "interactive compiled Lisp function", at
> > least the few I tried did.
>
> I think that's because your emoji.el isn't byte-compiled? Hm... mine's
> not byte-compiled either? Do we have to add some incantation somewhere
> to get newly-added .el files to be byte-compiled?
No. But emoji.el says this:
(insert ";; Local" " Variables:
;; coding: utf-8
;; version-control: never
;; no-byte-compile: t
;; no-update-autoloads: t
;; End:
(provide 'emoji-labels)
and that trips the 'compile-main' target in lisp/Makefile to think
this file should not be byte-compiled.
> > Is this the same "closure"?
>
> Yes.
>
> > What is special about this command that we say "closure" there? Do we
> > have to confuse users by showing that in the Help buffers?
>
> C-h f will say that about all uncompiled functions that use lexical
> binding, I think? So there's nothing special about it. (If it didn't
> use lexical binding it'd say "lambda" instead of "closure", I guess.)
>
> I have no opinion on whether this distinction (lambda/closure) is
> meaningful to expose to the user in `C-h f'.
I think we should replace "closure" by "function" in the Help buffer.
There's no need to show this to users.
bug#51661: 29.0.50; What is "interactive Lisp closure"?, Andreas Schwab, 2021/11/07