Re: draft of alternate proposal for EVAL-WHEN-NON-TOP-LEVEL

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

Your concerns have been noted.  In response, I want to say that the
reason why I've been pursuing this is that I just don't feel
completely comfortable with the GENERALIZE-EVAL proposal and I haven't
entirely given up hope of coming up with something better.  That you
need such a large piece of pseudocode, two state variables, plus a
table to describe the nesting behavior to specify how EVAL-WHEN works
bothers me because it's an indication of just how complicated the
semantics are.  The semantics make as much sense as any of the other
alternatives we've considered, but I still wish we could come up with
a less complicated model of how EVAL-WHEN behaves.  

On the other hand, I realize that my alternate proposal doesn't
represent a vast improvement and that we are running out of time to
come up with radically different alternatives.  If those of us who
still have reservations about the GENERALIZE-EVAL proposal haven't
reached consensus (or at least major progress in that direction) on an
alternative by the end of the week, there won't be one on the ballot.

Please, go ahead and formulate your model of how the CLOS macros work
in terms of the GENERALIZE-EVAL proposal.  Once we have something
specific in hand there, it will be easier for all of us to understand
what the interactions between the two issues might be. 

-Sandra
-------