Re: issue CONSTANT-CIRCULAR-COMPILATION, version 4

[sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)]

Thanks for your comments.  I'll try to clarify the wording of the 
proposal to make it more obvious what "preserving EQness" is supposed
to mean.

On the specific problems with uninterned symbols, I believe this is
really a problem with issue CONSTANT-COMPILABLE-TYPES.  It's not really
clear whether it requires non-EQ uninterned symbols in the source code
to remain non-EQ in the compiled code.

I agree that it is confusing to have the problems relating to compiled
constants broken up over several issues.  I'm hoping that when these
are presented at the upcoming meeting it will provoke some additional
discussion and we can perhaps get a feel for what the majority view is
on each of the subissues, or work out some compromise positions, that
would allow us to present a more unified view when it comes time for
an actual vote.  (I found that the straw votes we took at the last
meeting were very useful in telling us how to proceed on certain
issues.)  Anyway, as I see it, people would still argue about all the
subissues individually even if we presented a single mega-proposal
including all of them, and we don't really have a mechanism to have
multiple alternatives for sub-parts of a proposal, either. 

-Sandra
-------