"Written Responses" to CLOS 88-002: SETF Functions

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

re: If X3J13 has adopted setf functions, I agree that the CLOS spec does not
    need to discuss them.  If X3J13 is still dithering, I think the writeup
    should stay in the CLOS spec.  If X3J13 has rejected setf functions, then
    we have a problem.

SETF functions foundered on issues having nothing to do with function specs.
I say, "foundered", not meaning that they were rejected, but that substantial
issues were raised (mostly by Sandra Loosemore), and the discussion didn't
come to completion by the end of the day.

You missed the "Definitions Specs" presentation; there seemed to be
unanimous approval for continuing that proposal.  Even if there is 
continuing objection/discussion (and I don't think there will be) to the 
particulars of the "setf functions" semantics, there doesn't seem to be 
objections to "function specs".  

I believe that most of Sandra's objections were met by our collective 
responses that day.  For example, she wanted to know why their syntax
differed from that suggested by DEFSETF -- why the "new value" was the
first argument rather than the last.  We replied that it is necessary to 
be able to discriminate on the class of the "new value", and there is
no easy syntax for defining a method that discriminates on the last
argument rather than the first several.

However, under no circumstances can one justify leaving a "fix up" of
CL in the CLOS spec.  At best, CLOS should have an appendix explaining
any non-standard assumptions about the CL language --  an appendix which
itself isn't an integral part of the spec, but only an aid for those
who are not yet familiar with other X3J13 activity.


-- JonL --