Re: Issue: WITH-COMPILATION-UNIT (Version 2)

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

My belief was that if it does anything other than defer warnings without
your having to ask it to (using keywords), then portability would
be sacrificed because it may have radically different effects in
each implementation. On the next standardization, we can talk
about not only adding options, but allowing them to default.

I guess it should say in the Proposal part:

 Any implementation-dependent extensions may only be provided
 as the result of an explicit programmer request by use of 
 an implementation-dependent keyword.  Implementations are forbidden
 from attaching additional meaning to a conforming use of this
 macro.

If we just said that, would that alleviate the need for further examples?