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

> So maybe rather than hijack function-get/put in bug#27016, we should
> introduce a new "definitional put" with a corresponding `get`, and then
> use that here as well as in function-put/get.
>
> Maybe we could simply change put&get directly without introducing
> yet-another slightly different get/put?

Something like this?