Re: /srv/bzr/emacs/trunk r112347: * doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi (defcustom, defun, simplified-beginning-of-buffer, defvar, Building Robots, Review, save-excursion): `defun' and `defcustom' are now macros rather than special forms. (Bug#13853)

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

xfq <xfq.free@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Leo Liu <sdl.web@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-04-21 20:01 +0800, Xue Fuqiao wrote:
>>>   * doc/lispintro/emacs-lisp-intro.texi (defcustom, defun,
>>>   simplified-beginning-of-buffer, defvar, Building Robots, Review,
>>>   save-excursion): `defun' and `defcustom' are now macros rather than
>>>   special forms. (Bug#13853)
>>
>> "special form" is a better term than "macro". It signals the reader that
>> the form has special evaluation rule. How the special form is
>> implemented is details readers need not care about. Please don't change
>> a clearly written text to worse.
>
> Thanks for your attention.  A "special form" is a primitive function,
> and a "macro" is a construct defined in Lisp.  Both of them are
> mentioned in this manual (or tutorial):
>
> (info "(eintr) Lisp macro")
> (info "(eintr) Complications")

Indeed, there is some confusion in terminology there.

(info "(eintr) Complications") says:

  The second complication occurs because some functions are unusual and
  do not work in the usual manner. Those that don't are called "special
  forms".

That means, any "unusual" function is a special form, including
macros.

This page, however (I couldn't find it through the Info interface),

http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/Special-Forms.html

says that only primitive functions can be called special forms.

I believe that this conflict should be resolved in favor of the former,
and this opinion is supported by this sentence, removed in r112347:

  Because @code{defun} does not evaluate its arguments in the usual way,
  it is called a @dfn{special form}.

> I think cross reference(s) to the `Lisp macro' node is a better than
> revert this change.

IOW, the change should be reverted, and the manual should be updated not
to state that special forms are necessarily primitive functions.

--Dmitry