Issue: SYMBOL-MACROLET-DECLARE (version 1)

[Patrick Dussud <dussud@lucid.com>]

   Date: Tue, 13 Sep 88 07:06:10 PDT
   From: 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.

That seems reasonable.

   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))
	     ...)

This would be a very bad idea, it would be very inconsistent with LET, and
would introduce a bizarre semantics: Throw away what I just said in the
binding list. I think that it should be an error.

Patrick.