DOTIMES or REPEAT, and old-style DO flushable?

[JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)]

The overwhelming response is to keep DOTIMES in the flavour of
a "DO" rather than a "REPEAT";  that is, the argument against
extending is based on the premise that there will have to be
"named" capability for DOTIMES.  
    Date: 8 April 1980 22:40-EST
    From: Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>
    Subject:  DOTIMES
    .  .  .  we should consider 
    the case of named DOTIMES's -- this syntax would meet with 
    later problems if we decided we wanted something like that.
But at least some, myself included, feel the need for a very 
simple REPEAT syntax
    Date: 8 April 1980 22:12-EST
    From: Henry Lieberman <HENRY at MIT-AI>
    Subject: DOTIMES
    Instead, I propose REPEAT for this:
     (REPEAT (NUMBER-OF-TIMES) ...)
    This kind of repetition is so common 
    its worth having a clear syntax for it.
and 
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 80 18:24:00 GMT
Original-Date: 9 April 1980 13:24-EST
    From: Jack Holloway <H at MIT-AI>
    Subject: DOTIMES
    .  .  .
    (and it's too bad we can't flush old-style DO so we
    wouldn't need DO-NAMED)  .  .  .
    If you really want that, why not use the InterLISP name RPTQ 
    or something?  Or, (DOTIMES (IGNORE X) ...) isn't so bad...
But since we're talking about it, has anyone given thought recently
to actually flushing the old-style DO syntax?  It certainly becomes
less useful if you have DOTIMES and a REPEAT as mentioned above.
The maclisp world is under one edict to flush old styles: on 
Sept 17, 1978  we introduced *CATCH and *THROW and announced the 
impending collapse of maclisp CATCH and THROW.  Is it time to
introduce RPTQ (or REPEAT) and take aim at old-style DO?