status of "object" or "standard-object"

[Sonya E. Keene <skeene@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

Last month we discussed whether CLOS should specify the class "object"
or "standard-object", and we didn't get anywhere.    

To me, this seems to be a hole in the spec that we ought to fill up in
time for the next draft.   It seems like most people believe there will
be one or more of these classes, but the spec doesn't say anything at 
all about them.    Unless we do something, our draft will imply that
there won't be these classes, but we will still be assuming there will
be.   

The spec excludes these classes quite explicitly, in the CPL examples.
The class precedence lists include all the user-defined classes and T,
but nothing else.   Also, the section on Meta Objects makes no mention
of "object" or "standard-object".   

We could either make a decision on this, or include it in the spec under
a new section "Issues still under Discussion".    It might happen that
other issues will have the same uncertain status at the November 
deadline.  Constructors are presently in that category as well.