[PARCVAX.XEROX.COM, not PARC-VAX] and Re: symbol-function of non-functions

[David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 26 Jan 87 14:42 PST
    From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM

    There was a misconception in David Plummer's reply that I think should
    be cleared up.
	...
    Nothing in CLtL requires this to be true. 
Inversely, I believe nothing in CLtL requires this to be false.  In
private communications with Masinter I "proved" based on  5 assumptions
which we can redistribute if necessary.
    Many Common Lisp
    implementations do not allow this form, although it is apparently
    allowed in some.

    Since apparently many people believe this is a property of Common Lisp,
    it may be grounds for a "clarification".