Issues: SETF-PLACES, SETF-FUNCTION-VERSUS-MACRO

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

I have re-read all of the referenced messages on SETF-PLACES and
SETF-FUNCTION-VERSUS-MACRO.  My opinion has not changed.  I don't
consider that any of my comments on SETF-PLACES have been adequately
addressed; that is, the version of SETF-PLACES that was mailed to X3J13
was the same as the original version, and the mail response to my
comments did not convince me that no changes to the proposal were
appropriate.

I agree with Gray that if the problem is with making SYMBOL-FUNCTION
accept arguments that are not symbols, a better approach than
UNDERLYING-NAME is to add FDEFINITION and its related primitives,
leaving SYMBOL-FUNCTION alone.  This provides a clear layering of
primitives, instead of this strange (to me anyway) concept of a
translation that may or may not actually translate.  I wasn't at the
October X3J13 meeting, but from the description of the amendment at that
meeting, what Gray said seems to be more like what X3J13 was asking for.

We have been discussing this stupid issue for almost a year and a half.
I certainly hope the January X3J13 meeting can come to a decision.