Re: issue COMPILER-VERBOSITY, version 6

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

The current practice of this proposal says that one implementation has a
:VERBOSE that is used for what this proposal calls :PRINT, gives no current
examples of :VERBOSE, etc.  I'm suspicious of a proposal to add something
that is significantly more complex than what any current implementation
already has.

COMPILE-FILE is significantly more part of the "environment" than LOAD is,
and I think that the less we specify its behavior, the better off we are.
While there are useful programmatic portable invocations of LOAD where
controlling the output behavior portably is important, the case for
portable control of output behavior of COMPILE-FILE is much less strong.
What about environments that support incremental compilation? Where
compilation is handled by a background process? Wouldn't this be
unnecessary junk for them to add?

If we have some doubts about whether some of these 'puppies' are really
useful, shouldn't we leave them behind? Not require them? 

Larry