RE: Issue: TAILP-NIL (Version 2)

[vanroggen%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com]

Well, that's a surprise.  I thought I had spotted a simple, non-controversial
item from Guy's list, which really needed to be done due to the inconsistency
in CLtL.

I must admit that I hadn't tried TAILP on a Symbolics machine.  I had just
read the description of TAILP in an older manual, which gave the possible
implementation I originally included (definition "A").  I guess I was guilty
of propagating false concepts.

Frankly, I don't really care which way we choose.  If several other would
prefer TAILP-NIL:T, then let's delete the TAILP-NIL:NIL proposal.  But
let's not spend a lot of time on it.

			---Walter