Re: Amendments requiring additional writing

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

While fixing typep and subtypep to deal with classes seems likely to
preferable to adding instancep and subclassp, attempting to fix type-of
so that it sometimes returns a class and sometimes returns a symbol
seems hopeless, and bad design. type-of is so underconstrained in any
case to be worthless. I think you're better off abandoning it -- e.g.,
implementations can return T if on instances of classes if they need to.

The proponents for disallowing careless name->value mappings will likely
be unhappy with the polymorphic typep and subtypep; it might be useful
to be able to lexically determine whether they might be used in a given
program. 

Does anyone else see a linkage between the function-type proposal and
the form for typep/instancep subtypep/subclassp type-of/class-of?