Should we rename `definition` to `code_expr` and `code_string`?

[timholy]

It belatedly occurs to me that definition is essentially part of the code_* family, returning the source AST and string associated with a method definition. Should we change the name, or do people prefer the current naming?

EDIT: to be completely clear, it might look like this:

julia> using CodeTracking, Revise

julia> using Colors

julia> c = RGB(1,0,0)
RGB{N0f8}(1.0,0.0,0.0)

julia> @code_expr red(c)
:(red(c::AbstractRGB) = begin
          #= /home/tim/.julia/packages/ColorTypes/TvB32/src/traits.jl:14 =#
          c.r
      end)

[oxinabox]

strongly infavour of this.
I had forgotten about this issue, but in a blog post last year I did find myself listing layers of representation and how to access them

• Source code (CodeTracking.definition(String,....)),
• Abstract Syntax Tree (AST): (CodeTracking.definition(Expr, ...),
• Untyped Intermidate Represention (IR): @code_lowered,
• Typed Intermidate Represention: @code_typed,
• LLVM: @code_llvm,
• ASM: @code_native.

So it is clearly natural

[timholy]

See #58!