Issue: RETURN-VALUES-UNSPECIFIED (Version 4)

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

My notes from Fairfax meeting...

Cleanup meeting:

 Thought ready for vote.

X3J13 meeting:

 Barmar: Wants to leave some of these unspecified.

 KMP: That just causes portability problems. Don't want to leave it
      unspecified -unless- someone can cite a reason to do so.

 JonL: People doing things like (AND (PRINT X) (PRINT Y)) need
       return values specified. [KMP choked at this thought.]

 Haflich: If many weren't defined, maybe we should leave 'em, but
	  since nearly all -are- defined, let's just go ahead and
	  round out the set.

 Skona: Most text books she's seen show CLOSE returning NIL.
	One text book shows it returning T.
	Since some people like to think of T as success and NIL
	as failure, maybe it should always return T.
        [There was some ensuing discussion of whether it could
	 ever return NIL since it signals an error in that case.]

 People seemed to think CLOSE should probably return T.

 No vote was attempted.