Re: Commands, term "closure" and online help

[Joel Reicher <joel.reicher@gmail.com>]

Michael Heerdegen via "Emacs development discussions." 
<emacs-devel@gnu.org> writes:

> Joel Reicher <joel.reicher@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Aren't "dynamically defined functions" bytecode functions when 
>>> running compiled code?  So this would not be a better term.
>>
>> Which bit of the documentation are you thinking of? I can't 
>> find that phrase with reference to bytecode.
>
> We are talking about the generated documentation in *Help*, 
> right?  I've just been using my own words.

In my question above I was referring to the Info documentation. I 
think it's helpful for the generated and static documentation to 
use consistent terminology.

> But: Note that the wording used in the generated help pages has 
> changed since the start of this thread: we are currently saying 
> (at least in master) "interactive interpreted-function" or 
> "interactive byte-code-function".  Can you live with that?

Oh I see! Just had a poke around in the repo; I didn't realise the 
elisp respresentations themselves had changed, and I thought this 
was still just a documentation matter.

I can't really offer an opinion until I understand the way the new 
types are being used, but I think the OP's main concern was that 
the term "closure" be avoided because it's a little opaque to some 
people unfamiliar with language implementation.

Thanks and regards,

       - Joel