Re: SETF (APPLY

[Charles Hedrick <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>]

I believe that we have two separate cases, each of which can be
described without implementation-dependent cruft:

(1) builtin SETF things.  In this case there is a finite list, and we
should say which of these forms should work with SETF (APPLY.

(2) user defined SETF's.  I believe that the most common cases
are those where the original language as in the manual works, except
instead of saying that they expand to the form (storefn zi1 .. zm),
say that the expansion is defined by a DEFSETF whose body is
of that form.  (Probably that is what the original author was thinking.)
Again, you may want to suggest that other forms may be supported if
possible, but I believe the definition should be in terms of what
the user writes, not the actual expansion.
-------