Re: Special Form Question

[NGALL@BBNG.ARPA]

    Date: Fri, 13 Dec 85 13:17 EST
    From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
    To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
    Subject: Special Form Question
    In-Reply-To: <FAHLMAN.12166802750.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
    Message-ID: <851213131726.3.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
    
    ...
    I agree.  I'd like to propose a clarification about macros.  If a symbol is
    the name of a macro, then symbol-function returns an unspecified object that
    it is an error to funcall or apply, however sticking that object into the
    symbol-function slot of another symbol does make that other symbol name the
    same macro.  The alternative would be to say that it's just as illegal for
    macros as for special forms.
    
	      --------------------
		
What about symbols that have both a macro definition and are
special-form names?

I prefer the alternative. Use macro-function to get the macro,
special-form-p to "typically" get the fexpr :-), and symbol-function
for honest-to-god functions.  Otherwise, implementations that don't
just return the value of the function cell will be forced to put macro
and special-form accessing machinery into symbol-function.

	-- Nick