FUNCTION-TYPE and EuLisp

I said in a message:

``Our position with respect to EuLisp will be more difficult....''

KMP goes on to argue various positions the EuLisp folks might have. I
suppose a reasonable way to proceed is to set up KMP and some other people
to simulate the EuLisp folks and assume positions they might have, and we
can see how well our arguments might apply to those positions, but what I
meant by my remark is that if we moved as far as the cleanest formulation
of the FUNCTION-TYPE issue, that would be seen as an act of good faith on
our part and would cause the two groups to move much closer together and
to proceed with a common design much more easily.

If, for example, we changed Common Lisp to be a Lisp1 dialect, the groups
would merge. By ``position'' I meant negotiation position. I don't expect
this group to understand the process of negotiating with the EuLisp folks,
so there is no point in arguing the merits here.

			-rpg-