Re: issue DYNAMIC-EXTENT-FUNCTION, version 1

[sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)]

The last round of discussion on this issue was kind of inconclusive
and then I got distracted with some real work, but I have some time
now to work on a new version.  It sounded like there was some support
for the idea of just extending the existing DYNAMIC-EXTENT declaration
to take arguments like (FUNCTION <x>) instead of adding another
declaration just for functions, so that'll probably be in the new
version unless somebody complains.

I don't know what to do about the related issue of declaring that an
anonymous lambda has dynamic extent -- none of the alternatives that
have come up so far have much appeal.  Anyway, I don't think this
problem is as critical, because you could just restructure the program
to give the function a name.  I think you'd also get the right effect
by declaring that all the closed-over variables and functions
referenced in the lambda have dynamic extent.  So, I don't plan on
doing anything about it.

-Sandra
-------