Issue: CONDITION-RESTARTS (Version 1)

[Richard Mlynarik <Mly@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>]

    From: masinter.pa@xerox.com
    Subject: Issue: CONDITION-RESTARTS (Version 1)
    To: Richard Mlynarik <Mly@ai.ai.mit.edu>, Daniels.PA@xerox.com
    Reply-To: cl-cleanup@sail.stanford.edu

    Your thoughts?

	 ----- Begin Forwarded Messages -----

    [...]

The proposal doesn't compensate for the mistake of having
disassociated restarts from context in the first place.

All restarts should have associated with them a real predicate
(not just a screwy wired-in (lambda (c) (eq c associated-condition)))
In general the applicability of a restart depends on the dynamic
environment in which it invoked as well as that in which it
was established.

All restarting forms should require a condition argument (-not- NIL.)

Why on earth do ABORT, USE-VALUE, etc still exist?

The business about COPY-CONDITION is completely confused.

I don't care for the syntax, though it isn't worse than
that of the rest of the condition system.