Re: master 48ac40e60e: ; Fix last change.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2022 20:56:32 +0200
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Sorry, I reject the idea that abstract classes cannot be usefully
> > documented in concrete terms.  At least there's no excuse for not
> > trying.
> 
> I think it's much easier to describe what the function does in the
> semi-negative: The argument is a function, and it's not a
> lambda/closure.

It might be easier, but I personally would remain utterly confused by
such a description.

In general, saying what a thing is NOT is a very inefficient method of
explaining what it IS, because there are so many things that are not
it.

What exactly is the problem with the current wording?  Can you or
Stefan or someone else point out the actual deficiencies (as opposed
to semi-philosophical considerations)?