Issue: LOAD-TIME-EVAL (Version 8)

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

re: I guess I think the right thing to avoid deadlock here is just to carve out
    a paragraph in the discussion that says something like:

     Pitman was somewhat concerned that coalescing LOAD-TIME-VALUE results
     based on EQ-ness of the LOAD-TIME-VALUE form could conceivably lead to
     trouble down the line. However, since he could provide no actual examples
     to back up that worry, and since the majority opinion was that some
     implementations would find a restriction against such coalescing an
     undue burden, the decision was made to just `note the concern' and
     proceed on.


Count me in too on exactly the same feelings.  I think the "correct"
behaviour for EQ instances in differing functions could be well
specified if we required a "pre-pass" interpreter.  However, since
I'm against that requirement and don't see any other reasonable way
to specify the "correct" behaviour, then I would concur with your
opinion expressed above.


-- JonL --