Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> > Was it necessary to really expand symbol macros to fix that bug, or is
> > the purpose only to handle the following `symbolp' test correctly?
>
> No the problem shows up in the `gv-letplace` that follows immediately,
> so by the time we get to the `symbolp` test it's too late.
> But I suspect that the better fix is to skip the macroexpand call here
> and to change `gv-get` so as to do a `macroexpand-1` call even if its
> arg is a `symbolp`.

Ok, you have obviously more insight here, so can you maybe...take over
this part?

> > [`gv-synthetic-place'] seems to work quite as well (using the same
> > body and gv-spec) when defined as a function.
>
> The only downside is that the code is less efficient (the getter has to
> construct the closure of the setter, then call `gv-synthetic-place`
> which then just throws it away) but that should be easy to fix with
> a compiler macro.

Ok - does this look correct?