Re: Issue SAFE-CODE, version 1

[masinter.pa@Xerox.COM]

I'm guessing that Moon's objections are more serious than yours.

Frankly, as long as we're playing definitions, I think the problem lies
with 

"Define that, formally, the term ``safe code'' is code refers to any
  code in which the OPTIMIZE quality for SAFETY has a value of 3."

I don't think this is a good definition. It is probably good to define that
"any code in which the OPTIMIZE quality for SAFETY has a value 3" is "safe
code", but there is other code that is "safe" too. 

It seems pretty awkward to say that:

(locally (declare (optimize (safety 0))) (list 1 2 3))

is "unsafe" or "nonsafe" or "potentially non-safe". We could use the words
that way, but it is pretty confusing. 

Counter-proposal: say "declared safe" or "not declared safe", since the
issue is not the (English) safety of the code but the declarations in
effect?