-;;; Another problem with doing the simple thing: people will want to indirect
-;;; through something in order to get to SETF functions, in order to be able to
-;;; redefine them. What will they indirect through? This could be done with a
-;;; hack, making an anonymous symbol and linking it to the main symbol's
-;;; SB!KERNEL:SETF-FUNCTION property. The anonymous symbol could even point
-;;; back to the symbol it's the SETF function for, so that if the SETF function
-;;; was undefined at the time a call was made, the debugger could say which
-;;; function caused the problem. It'd probably be cleaner, though, to use a new
-;;; type of primitive object (SYMBOLOID?) instead. It could probably be like
-;;; symbol except that its name could be any object and its value points back
-;;; to the symbol which owns it. Then the setf functions for FOO could be on
-;;; the list (GET FOO 'SB!KERNEL:SYMBOLOIDS)
+;;; Another problem with doing the simple thing: people will want to
+;;; indirect through something in order to get to SETF functions, in
+;;; order to be able to redefine them. What will they indirect
+;;; through? This could be done with a hack, making an anonymous
+;;; symbol and linking it to the main symbol's SB!KERNEL:SETF-FUNCTION
+;;; property. The anonymous symbol could even point back to the symbol
+;;; it's the SETF function for, so that if the SETF function was
+;;; undefined at the time a call was made, the debugger could say
+;;; which function caused the problem. It'd probably be cleaner,
+;;; though, to use a new type of primitive object (SYMBOLOID?)
+;;; instead. It could probably be like symbol except that its name
+;;; could be any object and its value points back to the symbol which
+;;; owns it. Then the setf functions for FOO could be on the list (GET
+;;; FOO 'SB!KERNEL:SYMBOLOIDS)