Re: Issues DECLARATION-SCOPE and DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL

[Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 23 Jan 89 12:52:50 MST
    From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)

    > Assuming the vote on DECLARATION-SCOPE is not likely to be reversed, I
    > think DEFINING-MACROS-NON-TOP-LEVEL needs to be modified to treat the
    > body of LOCALLY as top-level.  If this requires changing LOCALLY from a
    > macro to a special form, so be it.

    I don't think that adding LOCALLY to the list of forms that must pass
    top-level-ness through would be a problem.  I don't see any great need
    to change it to be a special form, either.   ...

If you don't make it a special form, then MACROEXPAND can change its semantics.
[eg, if LOCALLY expands into LET, but LET is not something that works at toplevel.]
Currently, I don't think that's permitted -- MACROEXPAND is normally a 
semantics-preserving operation. I think Moon is right that adding LOCALLY to
that list would seem to require that it be implemented as a special form.