Random metaclasses for CL types

[Patrick Dussud <dussud@lucid.com>]

   However I don't see any particular consequence of requiring
   FUNCALLABLE-STANDARD-CLASS to be a subclass of STANDARD-CLASS rather
   than of BUILT-IN-CLASS.  It's certainly possible for one subclass of
   STANDARD-CLASS to paint a totally different picture of its instances 
   than some other random subclass of STANDARD-CLASS does.

I coudn't parse that, so excuse me if what I say is totally obvious to you. I
think that funcallable-standard-class shouldn't be a subclass of
built-in-class. That would break the intuitive concept of specializations: the
specialization refines the behavior of its superclass.

   Rather,  I would like 
   to see a clear picture as follows, where the dots show metaclass links, 
   and the slashes show subclass links:

		 FUNCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUILT-IN-CLASS
		/        \
	       /          \
	      /            \
	     ??   STANDARD-FUNCTION-OBJECT  . . . . . . . STANDARD-FUNCTION-CLASS
		   /                 \
		  /                   \
		 /                     \           GENERIC-FUNCTION
		/                       \              /
	       /                         \            /
     {PCL's "constructors"}      STANDARD-GENERIC-FUNCTION

Are you suggesting to add STANDARD-FUNCTION-OBJECT in the standard? I don't
have anything against it. It's just I am not clear on what you want. 

   The advantage of using the name STANDARD-FUNCTION-CLASS rather than
   FUNCALLABLE-STANDARD-CLASS is that it continues the parallels already
   established between the nomenclatures of certain other meta objects:

      STANDARD-OBJECT             --  STANDARD-CLASS
      STRUCTURE-OBJECT            --  STRUCTURE-CLASS
      {BUILT-IN-OBJECT}           --  BUILT-IN-CLASS
      {STANDARD-FUNCTION-OBJECT}  --  STANDARD-FUNCTION-CLASS

The names STANDARD-FUNCTION-OBJECT and STANDARD-FUNCTION-CLASS are misleading.
One can think that Common Lisp functions are standard-function objects. I
agree that the current name FUNCALLABLE-STANDARD-CLASS doesn't fit well in the
nomenclature, but it is strange enough so it does not have the wrong
connotation. 

Patrick.