Issue: SETF-SUB-METHODS

[Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>]

I have a question about the SETF-SUB-METHODS issue, which clarifies the
order of "evaluation" of access forms that are generalized variable
references.

The Cost to Users section only mentions the incompatibilities caused by
implementations changing to the required behavior.  What about users who
have implemented their own complex DEFINE-SETF-METHODs?  Will they need
to change these if they wish their generalized variables to be
consistent with the language-defined ones?  Or does this not affect the
return values from a SETF method?

                                                barmar