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

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

re: From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
    Subject: DRAFT Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)

        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.

    If you support both proposals, I see no reason not to leave them separate
    and just ask you to vote yes. . . .

Uh, the problem is that the SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE issue is raised
primarily because a macro-definition for SYMBOL-MACROLET would leave
the issue of DECLARE open.  But the special-form version of SYMBOL-MACROLET
really should address it [there already have been cleanup issues to address 
the declaration matter for the special forms that logically should have them
but for which CLtL didn't say -- FLET, LABELS, etc].

These two issues can no longer really be separated; if no one bothers to add 
the one-line sentence to SYMBOL-MACROLET-SEMANTICS that would fully subsume 
SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE, then at least these two ought to be paired together
in discussions and voting.


-- JonL --