Inconsistency in various DOs

[Quux <Quux at MIT-MC>]

cc: JONL at MIT-MC, MOON at MIT-MC, H at MIT-MC, KMP at MIT-MC,
    HENRY at MIT-MC

    From: JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)
    ...
       Speaking of issues, how important a loss is it that there has to
    be a DO-NAMED?  How big a loss would it be to programmers if they
    had to type PROG-NAMED rather than PROG?  Admittedly these "named"
    constructs are crucial to interpreters and compilers, but I'd be
    curious hear what proportion of DO/PROG usages by J. Random Loser
    actually use the "named" feature.  If its extremely low (say, below 2%)
    then it would seem counter-productive to constrain the future
    language constructs just to save typeing a rare "-NAMED".  The 
    Vision people, the Constraints guys, and the ACTOR builders might
    be the logical ones to provide input here.

I propose that ALL constructs be named.  Thus one might do
	(SETQ-NAMED FOO X (CAR-NAMED BAR (IF (OR-NAMED FOO (CAR X)
						       (AND (CDR X) (RETURN-FROM FOO 3))
						       (RETURN-FROM BAR 5))
					     (RETURN-FROM-NAMED FOO FOO 6)
					     LOSER)))
Three brownie points to whoever can tell me what this means.