Re: symbol-class is bad name

[Patrick H Dussud <DUSSUD@Jenner.csc.ti.com>]

     Gregor said:	
     
     We already explained that we felt that it was more conventional with
     CLtL to use symbol-class.  Jonl's arguments here don't change my mind
     about that.  I think non symbol names are a horrible idea.  It is a
     major step away from a lisp-1. FIND-CLASS might not be a bad name
     though.
     
     Moon said:
     
     The idea that naming a function SYMBOL-xxx implies that every symbol
     necessarily has associated with it 32 bits of storage to hold an xxx is
     simply ludicrous.  So is the idea that language design should be
     dictated by typos in Gregor's slides.  There is no mumble-NAMED
     convention in Common Lisp, and we felt it would be doing the language
     a disservice to introduce a new convention instead of using one of
     the existing ones.  FIND-CLASS would be okay with me; in Flavors it's
     (FLAVOR:FIND-FLAVOR name &optional (error-p t) (environment nil)).
     
     
     What do others think?
     -------

I don't share JonL concerns for SYMBOL-CLASS. Since it is likely to be
an obstacle for us at X3J13, I think that FIND-CLASS is OK. Adding an
error-p optional argument is good if CBOUNDP is removed.

Patrick.