Subject: bug#27016: possible bug in `defsetf'

From: Michael Heerdegen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 03:18:05 +0200

[email-masked] writes:

> Apologies if I'm misreading you, but do you have a non
> backwards-compatible fix in mind?  Because I don't see one of those
> either.

I wondered whether we could handle top-level setter definitions
specially (i.e. like now) and give up the magic for the rest.  But
that's probably a too drastic change, and I'm not sure if it would be a
good change either.

Michael.