> A binding being an association between a name and a value is a defect in Common Lisp. Well, it would be if that is how CL actually defined the word "binding"

> A binding being an association between a name and a value is a defect in Common Lisp. Well, it would be if that is how CL actually defined the word "binding" but it's not. The CL glossary defines "binding" simply as "an association between a name and that which the name denotes". It does not specify that "that which the name denotes" must be a value, and in fact there are name spaces (collections of bindings) in CL where the things denoted by names are not values. The TAG namespace, for example. The CL authors did make a few mistakes, but the definition of "binding" is not one of them.