-;;; This is like fdefinition on the Lispm. If Common Lisp had something like
-;;; function specs I wouldn't need this. On the other hand, I don't like the
-;;; way this really works so maybe function specs aren't really right either?
-;;;
-;;; I also don't understand the real implications of a Lisp-1 on this sort of
-;;; thing. Certainly some of the lossage in all of this is because these
-;;; SPECs name global definitions.
-;;;
-;;; Note that this implementation is set up so that an implementation which
-;;; has a 'real' function spec mechanism can use that instead and in that way
-;;; get rid of setf generic function names.
+;;; comments from CMU CL version of PCL:
+;;; This is like fdefinition on the Lispm. If Common Lisp had
+;;; something like function specs I wouldn't need this. On the other
+;;; hand, I don't like the way this really works so maybe function
+;;; specs aren't really right either?
+;;; I also don't understand the real implications of a Lisp-1 on this
+;;; sort of thing. Certainly some of the lossage in all of this is
+;;; because these SPECs name global definitions.
+;;; Note that this implementation is set up so that an implementation
+;;; which has a 'real' function spec mechanism can use that instead
+;;; and in that way get rid of setf generic function names.