Issue: TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I'd like to see added to the discussion section that there are
additional features of TRACE not being discussed at this time but being
included in other proposals. I think we also need to say that we
understand that TRACE is part of the environment rather than the
language and as such there are different criteria for evaluating
compliance. (E.g.,  we might want to define a level of acceptability for
embedded systems which includes all of the language but none of the
environment, e.g.,  system intended to be imbedded in an office
machines.)

I'd called this issue TRACE-FUNCTION-ONLY; the SETF proposal was called
SETF-FUNCTION-VS-MACRO in the tradition of naming issues after the
problems they solve rather than after one of the proposed solutions. I'd
like to see a few minor modifications to put this in the standard format
of cleanup proposals.

Finally, maybe I'm feeling grumpy today, but I've little enthusiasm for
this. Frankly, all of the programming environment features one might
standardize, TRACE is one of the most useless; I don't think I've TRACEd
anything for the last 6 months. Adding breakpoints, yes, TRACE, no; the
information printed is either too much or not enough.