bug#69739: 30.0.50; `type-of` is not precise enough

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Still, any change as suggested here would be an incompatible change, so
>> there's risk it'll break some code out there (`type-of` is not used very
>> often, but it *is* used).  Another option is to introduce a new function
>> which does the same as `type-of` but with changes like the ones above.
>> (we could even decide to give it a `cl-generic-` prefix to discourage
>> its use elsewhere so we can be more free to change its return value in
>> the future).
> I'd prefer a non-breaking change, if possible and reasonable.

Suggestion for a good name for that new function?
Should it make `type-of` obsolete?


        Stefan