suggested compiler feature.

[George J. Carrette <GJC at MIT-MC>]

cc: BUG-LISP at MIT-MC, BUG-LISPM at MIT-MC

    Date: 15 July 1980 16:13-EDT
    From: Howard I. Cannon <HIC at MIT-MC>
    To:   GJC
    cc:   BUG-LISP, BUG-LISPM
    Re:   suggested compiler feature.

    I meant to imply in my previous message that I think that GJC's
    lambda-list sggstion is also wrong.

I might have to agree with you on that. The reason that I suggested
that LAMBDA push away atomic macro properties is to meet the
objection of EB, that is, that (SETQ <ATOM> ...) only mean to
setq a variable. In the case of a lexically apparent variable
EB could be confident that (SETQ <ATOM> ...)  meant only
a very efficient and simple thing. SETQ of a special variable
would be another thing entirely. 

Implementing the lambda-list suggestion in the interpreter
would be non-trivial. All lambda expressions would have to
have a pointer to the lexical contour in which they
where created. 

Anyway, what is the right thing to do in lambda-lists?