Re: standard-type-classes

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 22 Jan 87 15:10 PST
    From: Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>

    NIL seems like a good name for the bottom of the class lattice, but if
    CLASS-NAME can return NIL for unnamed classes, then NIL isn't such a
    good name (too bad though).  How about BOTTOM, or NOT-T, or EMPTY? 
    
Unless Common Lisp is going to change the name of the type specifier for
the bottom of its type (not-really-a-)lattice, I think it's much better
to change what CLASS-NAME returns for unnamed classes than to change the
name of the bottom class.  If we need a bottom class, I think it needs
to be named NIL, because that is less confusing to a Common Lisp
programmer than any other name.  I don't have a strong opinion yet on
whether or not we need a bottom class.

The draft specification as it stands contains neither CLASS-NAME nor
anonymous classes.  Can we assume that someone is going to get their
act together and propose those at some point?