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

[David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 15:55:10 MST
    From: sandra%defun@cs.utah.edu (Sandra J Loosemore)

    > Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 17:18 EST
    > From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
    > 
    >     It makes me wonder if
    >     perhaps we shouldn't retreat to a minimalist position where PROGN is
    >     the only special case.
    > 
    > Do we really have to rehearse all the arguments as to why that won't work
    > once again?

    I'm not aware that such arguments have ever been coherently stated.  I
    just went through all my back mail on this subject and couldn't find
    anything on it from you or from anyone else.

I think you're right that it would work to not make locally, macrolet,
labels, and so forth when used at top-level treat their bodies as
top-level.  It would be less esthetic, but it wouldn't fail to work.
I was confused on that point.  What I was thinking of was eval-when;
CLtL p.70 seems quite clear that when an eval-when is processed
as a top-level form, and the situation LOAD is specified, the forms
in the body are also processed as top-level forms.  It doesn't use
the word "top-level" but from the context that's what "process" means.
I also really believe that it will not work to change this so that
the body of an eval-when is not top-level.

    Perhaps we need to be reminded that the minimalist position is
    actually the status quo -- PROGN is the only special case mentioned by
    CLtL.  

I'd claim PROGN and EVAL-WHEN.  I agree that CLtL doesn't require anything
else.

    I question whether the problem with LOCALLY justifies trying to come
    up with a model of what toplevelness is that is radically different
    than what is specified in CLtL.  

No, what justifies coming up with a model is that noone can understand
the description in CLtL, including I think its authors.