Comments on most recent draft: Chap 1 and 2

[Jon L White <edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU>]

re: . . .  Should it say that:
    "CLOS may be extended to cover situations in which foo is not a symbol."
Very good. I think that is the preferred wording, given that page of
chapter 1 about error conditions etc.

re: But, haven't we already extended symbol-function to take lists of the 
    form (setf fn) as an argument.  If not, how do we get hold of setf 
    generic-functions?
I don't recall how the recent discussions on this mailing list suggested
to do it.  A reasonable user-extensible naming scheme, such as Interlisp's
"typed definitions" system or the LispMachine's function specs, would have 
form-specific ways to access the created definitions.  That is, when you 
defined (setf fn) to be a "function spec" or whatever, you would provide 
creator, accessor, (and possibly) modifer functions.

-- JonL --