LAMBDA syntax counter-counter-proposal

[Earl A. Killian <EAK at MIT-MC>]

It is clear to me from the discussion so far that there ought to
be a primitive that is very simple for lambda binding.  Then
various styles can be implemented as macros that use the
primitive.  I think this is in keeping with the general spirit of
LISP.  The "syntax" of the primitive would be designed without
concern for readability, etc., but rather simplicity and
extensibility.

I think &-lambdas fail the simplicity test, and GLS's proposal
fails the extensibility test.  RMS's proposal would be a good
primitive if simplified (e.g. disallow (OPTIONAL A B) in favor of
(OPTIONAL A) (OPTIONAL B) and eliminate AUX).  Other things are
possible (e.g. each entry being (<NAME> . <PROPERTY-LIST>)).

I don't mean to suggest, however, that we should stop discussing
what macro we want installed by default on LAMBDA.