anchor.diff:        ,@(if command-table
               `((define-command-table ,@command-table)))
         ,@(if command-definer
  -            `((defmacro ,command-definer (name-and-options arguements &rest body)
  +            `((defmacro ,command-definer (name-and-options arguments &rest body)
                   (let ((name (if (listp name-and-options) (first name-and-options) name-and-options))
                         (options (if (listp name-and-options) (cdr name-and-options) nil))
                         (command-table ',(first command-table)))
  -                  `(define-command (,name :command-table ,command-table ,@options) ,arguements ,@body))))))))
  +                  `(define-command (,name :command-table ,command-table ,@options) ,arguments ,@body))))))))
   
   (defun get-application-frame-class-geometry (name indicator)
     (getf (get name 'application-frame-geometry) indicator nil))
  
positive.code: 
  (defmethod (setf frame-current-layout) :after (name (frame application-frame))
    (declare (ignore name))
    (generate-panes (frame-manager frame) frame)
    (signal 'frame-layout-changed :frame frame))
  
  (defmethod generate-panes :before (fm  (frame application-frame))
    (declare (ignore fm))
  
negative.code: 
  (defmethod read-frame-command ((frame application-frame)
  			       &key (stream *standard-input*))
    ;; The following is the correct interpretation according to the spec.
    ;; I think it is terribly counterintuitive and want to look into
    ;; what existing CLIMs do before giving in to it.
    ;; If we do things as the spec says, command accelerators will
    ;; appear to not work, confusing new users.
    #+NIL (read-command (frame-command-table frame) :use-keystrokes nil :stream stream)
    (read-command (frame-command-table frame) :use-keystrokes t :stream stream))
  
  (defmethod execute-frame-command ((frame application-frame) command)
  