-;;; FIXME: This is awkward and unmnemonic. There is a function
-;;; (INVALID-WRAPPER-P) to test this return result abstractly for
-;;; invalidness but it's not called consistently; the functions that
-;;; need to know whether a wrapper is invalid often test (EQ
-;;; (WRAPPER-STATE X) T), ick. It would be good to use the abstract
-;;; test instead. It would probably be even better to switch the sense
-;;; of the WRAPPER-STATE function, renaming it to WRAPPER-INVALID and
-;;; making it synonymous with LAYOUT-INVALID. Then the
-;;; INVALID-WRAPPER-P function would become trivial and would go away
-;;; (replaced with WRAPPER-INVALID), since all the various invalid
-;;; wrapper states would become generalized boolean "true" values. --
-;;; WHN 19991204
+;;; FIXME: We have removed the persistent use of this function throughout
+;;; the PCL codebase, instead opting to use INVALID-WRAPPER-P, which
+;;; abstractly tests the return result of this function for invalidness.
+;;; However, part of the original comment that is still applicable follows.
+;;; --njf, 2002-05-02
+;;;
+;;; FIXME: It would probably be even better to switch the sense of the
+;;; WRAPPER-STATE function, renaming it to WRAPPER-INVALID and making it
+;;; synonymous with LAYOUT-INVALID. Then the INVALID-WRAPPER-P function
+;;; would become trivial and would go away (replaced with
+;;; WRAPPER-INVALID), since all the various invalid wrapper states would
+;;; become generalized boolean "true" values. -- WHN 19991204