Issue: SETF-PLACES (version 1)

[Patrick Dussud <dussud@lucid.com>]

   Date: Tue, 22 Nov 88 19:49 EST
   From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

   I am not happy with this proposal, because I think it is excessively
   complicated.  I still prefer the SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO proposal.
   However, I would rather accept this kludge than not have CLOS at all, so
   if X3J13 is adamantly against SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO I will accept this
   proposal.
I have the same feelings about it. Having my name associated with it does not
mean that I like it, only that I helped debug it, and that I am not ready to
remove SETF specs from CLOS.

  I would prefer to see X3J13 allowed to vote on both proposals
   as alternatives, since it's possible that when they see this one they
   would prefer the one they rejected before.
I think we should do that.

   Note: I am not complaining about the writeup of the proposal, which
   is quite clear, but about the substance of the proposal.  I believe
   the distinction between "specs" and "underlying names" is confusing
   and unnecessary.  Evidently that is a minority position.
Given the amount of feedback, it is too early to tell if it is a minority
position. 

Patrick.