re: Issue: EXIT-EXTENT (Version 5)

[Kim A. Barrett <IIM@ECLA.USC.EDU>]

MINIMAL:  NO, for reasons I have discussed on the mailing list.  Basically, I
feel this seriously damages the semantics of the language, playing havoc with
both UNWIND-PROTECT and the definition of dynamic-scope.

MEDIUM:  Currently NO, even though the intent of this proposal is what I want,
because the current proposal is poorly written.  I don't believe it is really
ready for voting yet.  I agree with Moon's comment that this may be hard to
write in a reasonably implementation-independent way.  My intuition is based on
the nesting of forms, but I'm not sure how constraining a writup based on that
would be (though obviously somewhat, since the technique Symbolic's uses is
invalidated by acceptence of something like this proposal).