Terminology: Shared versus class; local versus instance

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

Either terminology would be okay with me, as long as they are used
consistently.

Note that by recourse to old documents you can discover that the
term "local slot" was introduced to cover both ":allocation :instance"
and ":allocation :dynamic" slots.  No doubt the existence of :dynamic
meant that it would have been confusing to call these "instance slots".
Now that :dynamic is gone, it would be okay with me to simplify things
by calling the two kinds of slots "instance" and "class".  Do you think
that this terminological change might cause trouble for implementations
that experiment with extensions, such as dynamic slots?  (Of course
one might wonder in this connection why no one ever proposed dynamic
class slots, in other words, why the static/dynamic distinction was
thought to be on the same axis as the local/shared distinction.)