Re: user survey

[Nathaniel Mishkin <Mishkin@YALE.ARPA>]

    1. Single quote read syntax:  

What this (and previous discussions) leads me to believe is that your
general macro expansion mechanism may too general if it raises problems
like this.  Personally, I just can't get all that worked up about
the potential for people redefining QUOTE.  Some languages have real
reserved words; can't T?  Can you give a more plausible example where
either (a) redefinition of reserved words is desirable, or (b) the
user could screw himself without realizing it with the present
mechanism?
    
    2. The value of T.  

Perhaps you could give some motivation.  Based on what you said, it
seems gratuitous.

    3. Semantics of LET.  

It seems like the real problem here is confusion with the way BIND
works.  E.g. the form:

        (BIND (((A B) (FOO X))) ...)

already has meaning.  Of the 3 possibilities you gave for LET, 
the LABELS/DEFINE one:

        (LET (((A B) (FOO X))) ...) == (LET ((A (LAMBDA (B) (FOO X)))) ...)

seems to bear the most similarity to BIND.  In both cases the CAR
of the spec looks like a call (procedure followed by arguments).

Both local procedures and multi-value return seems like features of
equal importance and usefulness so it's hard to say which one should
be annointed with convenient syntax.  (The DESTRUCTURE possibility
doesn't seem like the right one because many of its uses may be
supplanted by the multi-value return functionality.)

                -- Nat