fix(swank): improve doc-str to work with any objects, not only functions

[UnkwUsr]

Honestly, I'm not familiar with common lisp (only touching it lesser than a week), so will be good if someone with good common lisp knowledge approve it.

---

Original doc-str was constructing things like: (describe #'list)

Eval result

(describe #'list)
; #<FUNCTION LIST>
;   [compiled function]
; 
; 
; Lambda-list: (&REST ARGS)
; Declared type: (FUNCTION * (VALUES LIST &OPTIONAL))
; Derived type: (FUNCTION (&REST T) (VALUES LIST &OPTIONAL))
; Documentation:
;   Construct and return a list containing the objects ARGS.
; Known attributes: flushable, unsafely-flushable, movable
; Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;LIST.LISP

and: (describe #'defun)

Eval result

(describe #'defun)
; COMMON-LISP:DEFUN is a macro, not a function.

---

When with this fix it does: (describe 'list)

Eval result

(describe 'list)
; COMMON-LISP:LIST
;   [symbol]
; 
; LIST names a compiled function:
;   Lambda-list: (&REST ARGS)
;   Declared type: (FUNCTION * (VALUES LIST &OPTIONAL))
;   Derived type: (FUNCTION (&REST T) (VALUES LIST &OPTIONAL))
;   Documentation:
;     Construct and return a list containing the objects ARGS.
;   Known attributes: flushable, unsafely-flushable, movable
;   Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;LIST.LISP
; 
; LIST names the built-in-class #<BUILT-IN-CLASS COMMON-LISP:LIST>:
;   Class precedence-list: LIST, SEQUENCE, T
;   Direct superclasses: SEQUENCE
;   Direct subclasses: CONS, NULL
;   Sealed.
;   No direct slots.

and: (describe 'defun)

Eval result

(describe 'defun)
; COMMON-LISP:DEFUN
;   [symbol]
; 
; DEFUN names a macro:
;   Lambda-list: (NAME LAMBDA-LIST &BODY BODY)
;   Documentation:
;     Define a function at top level.
;   Source file: SYS:SRC;CODE;MACROS.LISP

So it works both for functions and macros (and whatever other?)

[Olical]

I don't know enough about the language to dispute this one way or the other but I'll merge to develop for now and let people try it. Looks absolutely fine to me! I worry some symbols require the original code and some require the new one you added, but I guess we'll find out?

It makes sense to me that the single quote will handle everything, but as I'm no expert I can't be 100% sure.