Misc

[Stan Shebs <SHEBS@UTAH-20.ARPA>]

I would volunteer to moderate if my stature weren't so low...

First off, I don't believe that the status quo is necessarily desirable.
Personally, I like the PSL FOR macro with its more Lispy syntax - the
more complex iterations are easier to read when there's lots of parens.
Editors that understand parens also do a better job of formatting.
Unfortunately, The Book appears to exclude such a format by requiring
that LOOP keywords be atoms (although perhaps one could have a single
atom that indicates that all the succeeding lists are to be interpreted
as clauses rather than expressions).

Furthermore, what exactly *is* the status quo?  Is Symbolics going to
be nice and let us use their version of LOOP, which has some differences
from the standard?  What about the NAMED keyword?  I don't believe that's
available everywhere, but it seems like something better done with
CATCH and THROW anyway.  Is dependence on forms being processed "in order"
so deep that no one wants to make it optional (say for the compiler's
benefit)?  Perhaps somebody could give the official definition of the
"status quo" and then we could react to it...

							stan shebs
-------