+@findex ensure-generic-function
+@findex generic-function-declarations
+@findex sb-mop:generic-function-declarations
+the arguments @code{:declare} and @code{:declarations} to
+@code{ensure-generic-function} are both accepted, with the leftmost
+argument defining the declarations to be stored and returned by
+@code{generic-function-declarations}.
+
+Where AMOP specifies @code{:declarations} as the keyword argument to
+@code{ensure-generic-function}, the Common Lisp standard specifies
+@code{:declare}. Portable code should use @code{:declare}.
+
+@item
+@findex validate-superclass
+@findex finalize-inheritance
+@findex sb-mop:validate-superclass
+@findex sb-mop:finalize-inheritance
+@tindex standard-class
+@tindex funcallable-standard-class
+@tindex sb-mop:funcallable-standard-class
+@tindex function
+@findex sb-mop:class-prototype
+@findex class-prototype
+although SBCL obeys the requirement in AMOP that
+@code{validate-superclass} should treat @code{standard-class} and
+@code{funcallable-standard-class} as compatible metaclasses, we
+impose an additional requirement at class finalization time: a class
+of metaclass @code{funcallable-standard-class} must have
+@code{function} in its superclasses, and a class of metaclass
+@code{standard-class} must not.
+
+@findex typep
+@findex class-of
+@findex subtypep
+After a class has been finalized, it is associated with a class
+prototype which is accessible by a standard mop function
+@code{sb-mop:class-prototype}. The user can then ask whether this
+object is a @code{function} or not in several different ways: whether it
+is a function according to @code{typep}; whether its @code{class-of} is
+@code{subtypep} @code{function}, or whether @code{function} appears in
+the superclasses of the class. The additional consistency requirement
+comes from the desire to make all of these answers the same.
+
+The following class definitions are bad, and will lead to errors
+either immediately or if an instance is created:
+@lisp
+(defclass bad-object (funcallable-standard-object)
+ ()
+ (:metaclass standard-class))
+@end lisp
+@lisp
+(defclass bad-funcallable-object (standard-object)
+ ()
+ (:metaclass funcallable-standard-class))
+@end lisp
+The following definition is acceptable:
+@lisp
+(defclass mixin ()
+ ((slot :initarg slot)))
+(defclass funcallable-object (funcallable-standard-object mixin)
+ ()
+ (:metaclass funcallable-standard-class))
+@end lisp
+and leads to a class whose instances are funcallable and have one slot.
+
+@tindex funcallable-standard-object
+@tindex sb-mop:funcallable-standard-object
+Note that this requirement also applies to the class
+@code{sb-mop:funcallable-standard-object}, which has metaclass
+@code{sb-mop:funcallable-standard-class} rather than
+@code{standard-class} as AMOP specifies.
+
+@item
+the requirement that ``No portable class @math{C_p} may inherit, by
+virtue of being a direct or indirect subclass of a specified class, any
+slot for which the name is a symbol accessible in the
+@code{common-lisp-user} package or exported by any package defined in
+the ANSI Common Lisp standard.'' is interpreted to mean that the
+standardized classes themselves should not have slots named by external
+symbols of public packages.
+
+The rationale behind the restriction is likely to be similar to the ANSI
+Common Lisp restriction on defining functions, variables and types named
+by symbols in the Common Lisp package: preventing two independent pieces
+of software from colliding with each other.
+