issue QUOTE-MAY-COPY, version 2

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

Ok, I see you point.  The issue finally boils down to this:

   "Is the preservation of EQLness for quoted constants so important
    as to be the sole cause of yet another incompatibility between
    code compiled by COMPILE-FILE and code compiled by COMPILE?"

As you might have guessed, I favor giving as much leeway as possible to 
the implementors for making memory-management optimizations.  While one
implementor may choose not to do any such work, and another may even go 
out of his way to assure EQLness over an unlikely set of circumstances,
this should not constrain the third from doing the "classic" thing.  In
short, I don't see the value of adding constraints that
   (1) invalidate much existing practice, and
   (2) appear to be purely of theortical value.
Making "compiled code" (read: compile-file) work as closely as possible to 
interpreted code is _not_ "purely of theortical value."

QUOTE-MAY-COPY:ALWAYS is the only proposal that both recognizes the 
prevalent practice and pays (at least) lip service to the question of
compiled/interpreted consistency.


-- JonL -