Issue: EQUAL-STRUCTURE (Version 4)

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

Can we not say "CLOS instances" and just use "instances"?  The single
word is not ambiguous now that CLOS is adopted.  I don't want users of a
Flavors compatibility package to get worried that "CLOS instances" and
"Flavors instances" might be different. I'd rather the paragraph on
EQUALP read:

 EQUALP is similar, except that it ignores case in strings,
 descends arrays, structures, and instances. It uses EQ for
 all other types; for example, it does not descend hash tables.

I'd also like to add a paragraph like the following to the proposal
part. Anyone object or want to amend the wording?

 Document that object equality is not a concept for which
 there is a uniquely determined correct algorithm. The
 appropriateness of an equality predicate can be judged only
 in the context of the needs of some particular program.
 Although these functions take any type of argument and
 their names sound very generic, EQUAL and EQUALP are not
 appropriate for every application. Any decision to use
 or not use them should be determined by what they are
 documented to do rather than any abstract characterization
 of their function. If neither EQUAL nor EQUALP is found to
 be appropriate in a particular situation, programmers are
 encouraged to create another operator that is appropriate
 rather than blame EQUAL or EQUALP for ``doing the wrong
 thing.''