Re: Issue: FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT, FUNCTION-DECLARATION issues

[Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I apologize for sidetracking your original proposal with the related one of
whether function argument declarations have semantics at all.  It did seem to me
that deciding whether one writes 

(function + (&rest number) number)

or

(function + (&rest (list number)) number)

might wait for some resolution of whether there is any conceivable utility,
other than documentation, for making either declaration, lest the issue bee
moot.

However, we probably should  go forward with the discussion of the form of the
declaration independent of its semantics, and separate out, say,
FUNCTION-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS, from FUNCTION-TYPE-REST-LIST-ELEMENT.

If there's no objection to doing so, I'll open up another issue name, and
attempt to write up a FUNCTION-ARGUMENT-TYPE-SEMANTICS.