Re: Comment on Emacs Lisp Introduction

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:01 AM, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Fren Zeee <frenzeee@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Robert, does your intro book explain things like how to get the full
>>>> definition of a function like for example
>>>>
>>>> next-line which is a down arrow
>>>>
>>>> (symbol-function 'next-line)
>>>> #[(arg) " \203& [next-line-add-newlines arg abbrev-mode 1 nil "
>>>> " line-move (line-move arg) ((... ...))] 3 1337315 "p"]
>>>>
>>>> I could not figure out from online doc and apropos how to do it.
>>>
>>> Huh?
>>>
>>> C-h f next-line RET gives the online doc, and the very first line is
>>>
>>> next-line is an interactive compiled Lisp function in `simple.el'.
>>>
>>> where the string `simple.el' is a hyperlink leading to the definition of
>>> next-line in simple.el.  So I don't understand what problem you
>>> encountered using the online documentation.  You can also use
>>> M-x find-function RET next-line RET
>>> to get to the source.
>>>
>>> What is your problem?
>>
>> David, My problem is that I want to see the function definition of next-line.
>>
> ie lisp code without having to search, find which file has it and then
> open it.

Emacs does all the work for you, so why do you complain?

> On some platforms, I dont have the source and its an unnecessary
> interruption in the work to go and make the detour to search for it.

Distributing Emacs without corresponding source to the byte code is a
violation of its license.

Byte code is byte code.  You can't turn byte code back into Elisp.  If
you want to look at the byte code in a more readable form than that used
by just printing its Lisp forms, you can use M-x disassemble on the
compiled command.

That is most certainly not the corresponding source code, but you
_refuse_ to read the corresponding source code for whatever twisted
reason.

-- 
David Kastrup