;;; can't assume that they aren't just naming a function (SETF FOO)
;;; for the heck of it. NAME is already known to be well-formed.
(defun note-if-setf-fun-and-macro (name)
- (when (consp name)
- (when (or (info :setf :inverse name)
- (info :setf :expander name))
+ (when (and (consp name)
+ (eq (car name) 'setf))
+ (when (or (info :setf :inverse (second name))
+ (info :setf :expander (second name)))
(compiler-style-warn
"defining as a SETF function a name that already has a SETF macro:~
~% ~S"