issue WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT, version 3

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

I oppose this because I don't think it's finished, however I expect I
would support it if it were finished.  It may be that the amount of work
required to finish this is small and the proposal just needs amending.

I don't think it's acceptable to have something like this if its effect
is only defined for warnings, and its effect on compile-time
proclamations, compile-time macro definitions, compile-time defconstant
definitions, compile-time optimizer definitions, compile-time type
definitions, compile-time setf definitions, and compile-time CLOS
definitions is left unspecified.

I think lumping COMPILE and COMPILE-FILE together here reflects
confusion.  COMPILE and COMPILE-FILE have very little to do with each
other, and I think it's clear that COMPILE should not be affected in any
way by WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT.  Having COMPILE affected by
WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT is as unreasonable as having MACROEXPAND affected
by WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT, if you ask me.  I think removing COMPILE would
address Barrett's complaint in the discussion section; that is, I think
having COMPILE-FILE not override an enclosing WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT is
correct.