Issue: DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS (Version 1)

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

Kathy recently forwarded this to me. It looks reasonable to me.
I guess the question is whether anyone has an implementation in
which it would be inappropriate to do this inlining. If so, we'll
need to explore that.

-----
Issue:        DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS
References:   DEFSTRUCT (p. 308)
Category:     CHANGE
Edit history: 5-Oct-88, Version 1 by Chapman

Problem Description:

 It is left up to the implementation whether or not the DEFSTRUCT access
 function is declared inline.

Proposal (DEFSTRUCT-ACCESS-FUNCTIONS:INLINE)

 Make it mandatory that implementations declare access functions inline.
 Of course the declaration may or may not mean anything within the 
 particular implementation.

Rationale:

 This requirement resolves user ambiguity.

Current Practice:

Adoption Cost:

 Minimal.

Benefits:

 This clarification will give users insurance that the inline declaration
 has been made for the access function.

Conversion Cost:

 Minimal.

Aesthetics:

 None.

Discussion: