Re: Amendments requiring additional writing

[Danny Bobrow <Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM>]

I mostly agree.  I notice consturctors still in there, although that is
not yet agreed to. But the oner serious remaining problem is in the
wording of the last paragraph (not a new one):
    The \CLOS\ guarantees that {\bf defclass} can be used to change
    the definition of an existing class that was previously defined by
    {\bf defclass} as long as the {\bf :metaclass} option is not used
    in either the old or the new definition.  Whether {\bf defclass} is
    allowed to change the metaclass and whether redefining a class
    causes existing instances to be updated is up to the implementor of
    the particular metaclass.  ``The \CLOS\ Meta-Object Protocol'' will
    describe how to control this.

The problem is that defclass without a metaclass option can be used with
class-for-redefinition to keep the class other than standard-class.  I
would prefer to say:

    The \CLOS\ guarantees that the user can change
    the definition of an existing class that is a standard-class,
    and cause its instances to be updated. 
    Whether redefining a class that is not a standard-class
    causes existing instances to be updated is up to the implementor of
    the particular metaclass.  ``The \CLOS\ Meta-Object Protocol'' will
    describe how to control this.