Re: structure type specifier

[Robert W. Kerns <RWK@YUKON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Wed, 9 Dec 87  09:36:26 EST
    From: baldwin@ACORN

	Problem is that things not mentioned at all in CLtL are necessarily
    implementation-dependent and so I have an "honest" choice between
    compromising portability for clear handling of these objects or not,
    whereas with structures I don't have this choice - they're a standard
    part of Common Lisp, but Common Lisp doesn't give me the tools to
    do much with them. (Put another way, if I want to handle an
    implementation-dependent extension to Common Lisp in an
    implementation-dependent way I don't feel as bad about it as handling
    a defined part of the language in a non-portable way.) For this reason
    I still think Common Lisp badly needs at least minimal support a
    "structure" type.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out that it's not worth
much unless we also include minimal support for working with
objects of the STRUCTURE type.  Neither you nor I are the first
to point this out.