bug#12149: 24.1; `C-h f' is worse and worse at telling where a function was defined

[Nicolas Richard]

Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com> writes:

> Whatever.
>
> Lots of users mention that `C-h f' is worse and worse at telling
> where a function was defined.  Closing the bug won't change that.

You report a bug, someone says they can't reproduce and asks if you
still see it, and this is your answer ? Perhaps this is a case of
culture clash, perhaps I see problems where there are none, but atm I'm
really wondering why you are acting so negatively.

I guess the answer lies somewhere within the many years of archives of
the various emacs-related mailing lists, but to the young ignorant eye
(like mine), your answers oftentimes... look really weird.

I'm aware this message is pretty much out of the topic, so feel free (of
course) to ignore or respond privately if you like.

Anyway, back to the topic, I tried loading a file test.el with content:

(defun do-silly-things nil
  (defun scroll-up (&optional arg)
    "Do nothing and pretend all is fine."
    t))

(provide 'test)

then run "emacs -Q -l test -f do-silly-things" and finally describe the
function scroll-up. The result was that emacs did not tell where the
function is defined, only that it's a Lisp function/closure. i.e. this
matches what Lars said.

-- 
Nicolas