Re: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (Version 1)

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I propose releasing this issue with the following changes to the
discussion section:

Add these paragraphs before the section "The following related features
were considered..." :

There was some concern about introducing the notion that the name of the
setf-function associated with FOO should be a list, (SETF FOO).  This is
a considerable extension to the idea of a "function name", at least for
standard Common Lisp implementations that do not implement Lisp machine
style function-specs.

However, the CLOS unsuccessfully tried a number of alternatives.
Fundamentally the problem is that there has to be a name that the user
uses to define the thing and to talk about it.  Trying to hide the name
just means you use a more obscure name, like an alternate syntax for
DEFUN or DEFUN-SETF. Another reason for making the name explicit is to
allow one to use FLET for the setf function -- something which would be
difficult if there is not a name-like entity that can be bound.  


Add this paragraph to the end of "The following related features were
considered...":

	Should one allow these extended function names in the car-position of
	an expression to be evaluated? The extra complexity didn't seem
justified,
	instead, an explicit funcall is required.