Re: EVAL-WHEN (really symbol-function)

[Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>]

    Date: Thu, 10 Apr 86 23:05:47 pst
    From: hpfclp!diamant@hplabs.ARPA

    I think it is time we back off for a second from what is in the book, and
    just think about what makes sense for Common LISP.  I would advocate
    making the restriction I have suggested explicit:  "It is an error to
    setf the symbol-function to an object not of type FUNCTION."

While it's true in general that we must consider what seems to be the
best language design, it is not true that we should adopt the attitude
that Common Lisp's definition should, at this point, be changed every
time we see something that we think could be changed for the better
(even assuming a strong concensus).  We have long since reached the
point at which stability of the definition of the language is an
important issue.  The detailed arguments to this effect have been made
several times already, so I won't repeat them; I'd just like to throw in
this reminder.  I presume that the technical committee will write up a
set of guidelines regarding this tradeoff.