RE: Lift {global,local}-key-binding to Lisp

[Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> >> Consider that, when a piece of code is implemented in Lisp, it's easier
> >> for us "mere mortals" to find it, read, understand and debug it. Even
> >> more so when it comes to people outside of emacs-devel.
> >>
> >> So as a result you should end up answering fewer questions about it.
> >
> > I invite you to have a look at the C implementation of these two
> > functions, and then explain to me how the original code was any harder
> > for "mere mortals" to understand, let alone trigger some questions.
> 
> It is, though of course the function is short.
> 
> As such, the arguments both for and against this change are relatively
> weak. Surely you won't have many troubles because of this move either.
> So both you and others in this thread are really arguing on principle.

There's also the consideration that many users will
not have bothered to download the C source code.

`C-h f' describes a function, and gives you a link
to its source definition.  (Use the source, Luke!)

But that link is less useful if the source is C code,
in two cases: (1) the user doesn't grok C well, (2)
the user doesn't have the C sources.

Sure, anyone can get to the source code for any
particular bit of Emacs, e.g., using the GIT mirror
on the web.  But having a Lisp definition available
locally is a heck of a lot more user-friendly than
jumping through extra hoops to check C code.

And this particular argument, at least, is even
stronger in the case of simple, easy-to-read C code.
In that case, both the Lisp and C code are clear,
but missing C code locally is a particular bother.

Just one consideration to add to the discussion.
Not necessarily the most important one, but one that
directly affects users.