DECLARE-MACROS (Version 1)

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 9 Nov 87 13:58 EST
    From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

	Date: Mon, 9 Nov 87 13:53 EST
	From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

	This looks ready to release, with two minor wording corrections:
	...

	  Make it illegal for a macro call to expand into a DECLARE form and be
	  recognized as such.

	Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a DECLARE form, since a list
	whose car is the symbol DECLARE is an error to evaluate.  CLtL p.153
	uses the term "declaration" for this, although I admit it also says
	"declare form" in one place.  Anyway I'd feel more comfortable if we
	said "declaration" here.

    How about "declare expression"? I had deliberately avoided the term
    "declaration" because I wasn't clear if a "proclaim form" was a
    declaration. Perhaps we should explicitly acknowledge that we don't intend
    to keep macros from expanding into declare forms to avoid later confusion
    on the issue.

I don't understand why anyone would think a proclaim form was a declaration.
I can see how they might think the object passed as an argument to PROCLAIM
should be called a declaration.  "Declare expression" would be okay, although
I don't see why we can't use the terminology CLtL uses instead of making up
new terminology.

Your last sentence must be a typo, the whole point is to keep macros
 from expanding into declare forms.  Maybe "declare" should be "proclaim"?
Explicitly saying that sounds good (it already does, doesn't it?).