RE: Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)

[piazza%lisp.DEC@decwrl.dec.com (Jeffrey Piazza)]

This seems like a reasonable proposal and does make SYMBOL-MACROLET more
consistent with LET.

This may be a separate issue, but somewhere we should nail down the
interpretation of e.g.

	(symbol-macrolet ((foo bar))
	  ...
	  (locally (declare (special foo))
	    ...foo...))

As currently specified, only a new binding for FOO can turn off its
interpretation as a symbol macro.  I'd like to see some language that said that
a SPECIAL declaration also shadows the symbol macro scope.

The limit case, which your proposal makes "an error", might then reasonably
have a null semantics:

	(symbol-macrolet ((foo bar))
	  (declare (special foo))
	  ...)

might be interpreted as

	(locally (declare (special foo))
	  ...)

I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about this part--it doesn't
seem possible to bring SYMBOL-MACROLET into complete consistency with LET here.

/JEP