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)

[Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>]

> Maybe we can add this sentence to (info "(eintr) defun") or (info
> "(eintr) Complications"), then add a cross reference to (info "(eintr)
> Lisp macro"):
>
>   "Macro" is a construct defined in Lisp, which differs from a function in
>   that it translates a Lisp expression into another expression which is to
>   be evaluated instead of the original expression.

I think a few sentences in "Complications" after the bit about special
forms with a link to the "Lisp macro" section of eintr is indeed all
that is needed. Personally I would say something about it acting like a
function for our [ie, the elisp-intro's] purposes.

>>> -(Another special form, @code{defcustom}, is designed for variables
>>> -that people customize.  It has more features than @code{defvar}.
>>> -(@xref{defcustom, , Setting Variables with @code{defcustom}}.)
>>
>> Why was this removed? It could have been simply changed to "Another
>> function,... ". The reference to defcustom is the important thing, not
>> the details of whether it is a special form or macro.
>
> Maybe "another macro"?

For the purposes of the elisp-intro, I have no problem saying a macro is
a function. You call it with arguments and it does stuff. "Another
macro" is wrong because defvar is not a macro. If you want to say macro
rather than function, you need to rewored it a bit more. Eg:

  There is a related macro, @code{defcustom}, designed for variables
  that people customize.  It has more features than @code{defvar}.
  (@xref{defcustom, , Setting Variables with @code{defcustom}}.)

> Thanks, I will do it the next time.  (Is there anyway to amend this
> commit log?)

No, it's immutable. But no big deal, so don't worry about it.