Status of SETF functions in Common Lisp

[Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>]

re: The issue SETF-FUNCTION-VS-SYMBOL was distributed and tentatively approved
    at the November 1987 meeting of X3J13. 

The issue name was SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO:SETF-FUNCTIONS

It had two parts: 
   (1) Specify that the expansion of SETF is into a function rather
       than merely into a "macro";
   (2) Allow a generalized name for this function.

The discussion under this issue is what led to formation of the 
"definition specs" group.  I doubt that anything that comes up
under the broader scope could conflict with the minimal assumptions
stated in that proposal.  In particular, a nomenclature style like
(SETF FN) must be acceptable, and #'(SETF FN) will designate the
function so named.

I certainly remember the overwhelming approval for this direction of
extension, but I think the reason it didn't just end with this single
proposal is that every place that accepts function names is involved,
not just SETF methods.


-- JonL --