Re: Issue: COERCE-INCOMPLETE (Version 2)

[Dan L. Pierson <pierson@mist.encore.com>]

    I see we have some choices:
    
    a) remove COERCE
    b) leave COERCE alone
    c) extend COERCE slightly
    d) extend COERCE a lot
    
    I think (b) or (c) are the best. I'll try to say why:
    
    ...

    So why don't we just define:
    (coerce x 'string) == (string x)
    (coerce x 'character) == (character x)
    (coerce x 'pathname) = (pathname x)
    (coerce x 'float) = (float x),
    
I agree.

In addition I think that COERCE is a dandy candidate for a generic
function, but it's my understanding that nominations for that status
haven't been opened yet.