DRAFT Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)

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

    Date: Tue, 18 Oct 88 15:40:02 PDT
    From: Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>

    This issue should be folded into SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS; it would be
    hardly one line in the descripton of SYMBOL-MACROLET as a special form.
    Since it looks like SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS is not very controversial
    anymore, I see no reason to support separate proposals.

In general, people who think something is non-controversial should take only
one course of action: vote yes and move on to the next issue. The only
justification for asking for a rewrite should be that you either disagree
on technical grounds which are not stated or not stated fairly, or else
you think that a particular presentation is vague or controversial and a
rewrite would head off needless debate down the line. I don't see you asserting
either of those positions, so I don't see any reason to act on your suggestion.

If you support both proposals, I see no reason not to leave them separate
and just ask you to vote yes. One of our most valuable resources is time to
get proposals into shape. If we have two proposals which are ready to vote
we should not waste time debating over whether they should be a single
proposal. Making them so might involve more work than you think since the
rationales might not merge as neatly as you expect or people might vote down
one big proposal when they could at least vote in one of two proposals if
last-minute controversy comes up on half the issue.

Worrying about merging two reasonable proposals is like worrying about
rewriting a working program using LOOP because you're not a DO fan. It
doesn't contribute toward the end goal of just getting done.