Re: Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 3)

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

The last message I can find on this issue is your message of last March. I've
misplaced Mathis message with the last minutes meetings; while I did note most
of the issues that were passed and discussed. 

This one I recall was held up pending the function-spec proposal. However, I'm
suprised we don't have a writeup past Version 3, given what I think were
reasonable comments from Kent.

Did I misplace some mail?

To recall:

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 88 20:02 EST
 From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Issue: SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO (version 3)
To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
In-Reply-To: <880214-134110-1441@Xerox>
Message-ID: <880312200240.9.KMP@RIO-DE-JANEIRO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

[X3J13 removed.]

I support many ideas of this proposal, but I have two gripes which make me
have to oppose it:
 * I can't deal with the idea of generalizing SYMBOL-FUNCTION. I would like
   to see FDEFINITION introduced and SYMBOL-FUNCTION left alone.
 * I'm also a little leary about TRACE being extended this way because
   (TRACE (a list)) might later want to be interpreted as options rather
   than as a function spec and I'd rather not have to risk heuristic resolution.
   I would rather someone right now introduce a generalized syntax for TRACE
   with syntactic space for trace options, such as 
     (TRACE (fn . options) (fn . options) (fn . options))
   and then allow the generalized (non-symbol) fn to only occur within that
   syntax so that no ambiguity results.