Is a class object a valid method specializer?

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1991 13:11 EST
    From: kab@chestnut.com (Kim Barrett)

    > > >> For example, is (defmethod foo ((x #.(find-class t))) ... ) legal?
    > > >
    > > > No in 88-002R, yes in ANSI Common Lisp.  I don't immediately remember
    > > > what cleanup removed the restriction.
    > > 
    > > I don't remember any such cleanup, and searching my online copies of the
    > > passed proposals has failed to find one.
    >
    > See page 4-15 of X3J13 draft 8.81.

    Well, that's pretty unambiguous.  I wonder where it came from though.  I've
    added Kent to the recipients, in case he can shed some light on that question.

Hmmmm.  Well, it wasn't in the text Kathy gave me and there's no comment
saying where it came from.  (For most potentially controversial things
like this, I've been following Kathy's lead and trying to leave comments
behind to help me justify changes that might get challenged.)

I did a Find String of "specializer" in all the passed cleanup issues and 
didn't discover any which would support this change.  (Not surprising since
changes due to cleanups usually get marked in the source in order for indexing
to notice them.)

My guess is that some reviewer that I trusted said it should be the other
way--or perhaps even more likely said as an aside that they wished it were
the other way and I misinterpreted their comment to be saying that it was 
just wrong in the source.  (Presumably the fact that the change seems right 
to me made me more susceptible.)

I'd suggest that someone raise it as an issue at the meeting under editorial
feedback, and propose to affirm the wording that's there (if they like it) or
to revert it (if they don't).

Sorry about all the confusion.  I really am not trying hard not to secretly
sneak things in like this.