Re: Issue: DECLARATION-SCOPE

[Pavel.pa@Xerox.COM]

Unsurprisingly, since it's so close to what I informally proposed a year or two
ago, I generally favor this proposal; it is much much better than the status
quo.  I do have a few concerns, though:

1) It is not clear to me that free declarations should cover the entire form.  I
note, in particular, that none of the discussion or rationale mentions the
scoping of free declarations.  The alternative that seems more natural to me has
them covering only the body of the special form in which they appear, not the
entire special form.  Charles, could you discuss this?

2) I would very much like to see more detail in the proposal.  In particular, I
would like a complete listing of the types of declarations and their kinds
(normal vs. free).  Conceivably, a list of all of the macros and special forms
supporting declarations and the scopes in each case should also be included.  It
may be, however, that this description is implied by the (sometimes nonexistent)
definitions of the semantics of the various macros and special forms.

3) I don't like using the name ``normal'' for one half of a dichotomy,
especially considering that the other half is named ``free''.  Is there any
reason not to call the others ``bound'' instead of ``normal''?

	Pavel