Re: symbol-class is bad name

[Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM]

Here is another thought on the symbol-class issue.  I believe this argues
for keeping the name symbol-class.

Consider the situation if we had a true lisp-1.  If that were the case,
classes, functions and `variables' would share the same namespace.  For
example (using a Scheme-like notation) the following program lexically
defines a class named foo and some operations on it.

(define (foo-package)
  
  (defclass foo ()
      ((x :initarg x)
       (y :initarg y)))

  (define (foo-p x) 
    (typep x foo))

  (define (make-foo x y z)
    (make-instance foo 'x x 'y y))

  (define (foo-distance f)
    (sqrt ...))

 )

I understand that the analogy from this to the symbol-class/find-class
name issue is at best clouded.  But, I do believe this argues for
keeping the name symbol-class.  The idea is that only a symbol can name
a class, so the function should have the string "symbol" in it.
-------