Another ballot

[Walter van Roggen <Walter.VanRoggen@CMU-CS-A> (C410WV50)]

A1: yes. But with PARSE-INTEGER to help read data, do we really
    need *READ-BASE* so much?
A2: ok
A3: option B. Lisp syntax is complex enough as it is. (perhaps a
    surprising thing to say, even discounting FORMAT.)
A4: yes
A5: ok, 0 based
A6: no
A7: yes, at least get rid of FSET, preferably both. I'd also like to see
    SETF renamed to SET, but that seems too much to ask for now.
A8: yes
A9: ok, though I'd prefer getting rid of CHAR and BIT as well
A10: yes, though what arguments should MAKE-RANDOM-STATE take then?
A11: ok
A12: yes iff DEFMACRO has it.
A13: ok
A14: yes
A15: ok, but rename CALL-VALUES-LIMIT to MULTIPLE-VALUES-LIMIT. We must
    agree on lower bounds for these values. There should be no bound on
    the number of arguments to a function, only on the number of named
    ones.
A16: yes
A17: yes

			---Walter