issue COMPILER-LET-CONFUSION, V3

[Jon L White <jonl@lucid.com>]

re: I've made a case that it [COMPILER-LET] expresses a useful high level 
    concept and that it can be coherently implemented. . . . 

And many of us don't buy that argument.  Furthermore, I don't think the
current msg you sent advances the discussion any.

[Kent, you can do much better when you don't "go meta".  In particular
your generalization of the CL-Cleanup activity:
    "In general, Cleanup
     does not drop alternative proposals unless they can achieve consensus
     that it is not worth pursuing the alternate proposals."
makes it sound as if there is some impersonal god named "Cleanup" who, 
working according to inexorable natural laws, ensures total fairness and
completeness.   It just isn't like that.  "Cleanup" consists of a lot of
very highly opinionated humans, who repeatedly make their voices heard,
just as you are now making your's heard on CL-Compiler.]

It's not unheard of that a *single* dissenting member of a sub-committee
has later swayed the whole sub-committee to his view.  Similarly, when
these issues are discussed, "bundled" or otherwise, at X3J13 plenary 
sessions, any X3J13 member who feels strongly enough on any issue can
move to reject the sub-committee's proposal and substitute a solution
of his own.  Considering that *very few* members of the whole committee
have been commenting on issues -- CL-Compiler or CL-Cleanup -- then
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this happens.

When there seems to be consensus on an issue, on either discussion list, 
it *does not* mean that everyone agrees;  it can simply mean that those who 
disagree don't feel the alternatives are so bad as to be worth wasting more
time on.   At this stage of the game, I think we must consider objections
primarily at the level of "is absolutely unacceptable".  

Do you really feel that the next version of CL will be "absolutely 
unacceptable" if it doesn't have COMPILER-LET in it?


-- JonL --