DECLARE-MACROS (Version 2)

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: 9 Nov 87 15:56 PST
    From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM

    I responded to Moon's suggestions for wording correction. I added an
    explicit endorsement at the end.

Looks ok.

    In the interest of shortening the issue, I removed the argument about
    destructive MACROEXPAND hooks, which, I think, is more controversial
    than the support that it raises.

As it happens, it's the issue which mattered the most to me personally --
just because it upsets my sense of order and makes me generally uneasy
when I think about it, I guess.  But since the proposal is likely to pass
anyway and since the issue is still alluded to under adoption cost, I guess
I can live with this "simplification".

    In order to avoid the controversy of what is a declaration, a declare
    expression, a declare form, or a list whose car is DECLARE, I reworded
    the proposal to be more explicit as to the intent, which is to negate
    one specific paragraph in CLtL.

Looks ok.

    I run some risk of making things worse, at least in your eyes, so you
    might want to cast yours on the PROPOSAL section and respond to me if
    you are unhappy.

Looks ok.

[Proposal omitted.]

I'll endorse DECLARE-MACROS:FLUSH (Version 2) as is.