loop macro

[David C. Plummer <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>]

    Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 15:11 PST
    From: DDYER@SCRC-RIVERSIDE.ARPA

	Date: Fri, 7 Feb 86 16:11 EST
	From: David A. Moon <Moon@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>

	Just to set the record straight:

	    Date: Wed, 5 Feb 86 10:49 EST
	    From: Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
	    ....
	    Since I'm getting into details, I should make quite clear that I do not
	    speak for Moon in the matter of LOOP.  Our opinions on this topic
	    diverge much more than they do on most other topics.

	True.

	    One of my own strong feelings about LOOP that Moon does not share is
	    that we should get rid of the conditionals.  

	False.  Dan misremembered my position here.  Actually, I've believed for
	several years that the conditionals in LOOP were the principal mistake in
	the current design.  If I were doing it over today, I would certainly use
	the regular Lisp conditionals, which of course implies changes to the
	theory of collection.  In the real world, one might consider keeping the
	conditionals just for compatibility, but frowning on their use in new code.

    The conditionals wouldn't be so bad if there were BEGIN and END markers for
    the scope of the body.   Adding BEGIN and END as loop keywords would solve
    eliminate my objections to the loop conditionals.

Oh, barf.  What Moon meant was
	(case x
	  (y (unless (or a b)
	       (collect xyzzy)))
	  (z (collect pray))
	  (otherwise (error "Loser!")))
Just adding block-construct keywords to LOOP is continuing a
beyond-its-time idea.