BIL's bug simplified:

[Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>]

(DEFUN F (&AUX (A (PRINT 'FOO)) (B (PRINT 'BAR))) (LIST A B))
(F)
BAR
FOO
(T T)

The bug in both cases seems to be that the list of setups which the
&AUX expands into is backwards. I thought it was agreed that &AUX had
the semantics of a LET* -- why doesn't it just turn into one and be done
with it. Wouldn't 

 (DEFUN F (...anything... &AUX ...more-stuff...) ...body...)

work fine if it were just

 (DEFUN F (...anything...) (LET* (...more-stuff...) ...body...))

Am I confused or is someone just trying to save a few cons's at the
expense of correct code?