Issue: IN-SYNTAX (Version 1)

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

This issue is far too narrowly focused right now.  For example,

-- I would *strongly* favor the name IN-READTABLE over IN-SYNTAX; the
   analogy is that IN-PACKAGE sets *PACKAGE*.  Alternatively, IN-SYNTAX
   would have to jointly handle *READ-BASE* and *PACKAGE* as well as
   *READTABLE*.

-- The change suggested for IN-PACKAGE in the IN-SYNTAX:NEW-MACRO proposal 
   presumes:
    (1) acceptance of the more radical IN-PACKAGE-FUNCTIONALITY:SELECT-ONLY
        proposal, or at least eliminating the :use and :nicknames arguments;
    (2) acceptance of the Cl-compiler's EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL proposal.
   While I favor both of these pivotal proposals, one might not want to
   get this issued hung up over them.

-- The rebindings of syntax parameters like *PACKAGE* and *READ-TABLE* by 
   LOAD and COMPILE-FILE are currently directed towards the perpetuation of 
   a horrible loophole; binding to "the current" values encourages the kind
   of viewpoint mistakes that occur frequently even to fairly compotent 
   programmers.


In short, we would all be better off if LOAD and COMPILE-FILE started out 
in a ***known*** configuration.  I would suggest binding *READ-BASE* to 10,
*PACKAGE* to USER, and *READTABLE* to a value like (copy-readtable nil).


The MIMIMAL proposal -- assuming the name change -- is nearly 
uncontroversial, and wouldn't preclude subsequent embellishments.
How about adding *READ-BASE* to it, and considering more standard
default values?


-- JonL --