Issue LOCALLY-TOP-LEVEL, v1

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Sat 11 Mar 89 19:34:07-PST
    From: Kim A. Barrett <IIM%ECLA@ECLC.USC.EDU>

    This issue arguably ought to be a compiler issue, rather than cleanup, since
    the compiler people seem to be the ones currently mucking about with what we
    mean by top-level.  (Besides, Larry is overworked as it is :-)

I may have sent it to the wrong committee by mistake.  If either Sandra or
Larry instructs me to send it to the other committee, I'll do so forthwith.

    More seriously, I support this idea, in part because of the frob example.  This
    kind of thing was one of the reasons I voted against the DECLARATION-SCOPE
    proposals.

    By the way, my notes from the Hawaii meeting say that we passed the NO-HOISTING
    proposal, and that LIMITED-HOISTING was not even called to a vote.

You're right, I copied down the wrong proposal name.  What I said about
it is true of the NO-HOISTING proposal but false of the LIMITED-HOISTING
proposal.  This needs to be fixed before it's distributed more widely.