misc. stuff

[Daniel L. Weinreb <DLW%SCRC-TENEX%MIT-MC@SU-DSN>]

    Date:    Thu, 30 Jun 83 14:20:16 EDT
    From:    Jonathan Rees <Rees@YALE.ARPA>
    [1] Will there be a unified index in the next edition of the manual?  I
    have the impression that Symbolics has decided that it is best to have
    one index instead of four or five.  I certainly agree.
Yes, we have.  Actually, I think we now belive that it's best to have
both kinds, but the one at the back (the one that's easy to find) should be 
a combined index.  Guy, Jan Walker has figured out some good ways to do
this in Scribe.

    [4] Pages 76 and 99: what is the lexical scope of the body of a macro
    definition?  I.e., where do free variables (and functions) get their
    values?  This needs clarification.  E.g., what does the following mean?

	    (setq x 8)
	    (eval-when (compile) (setq x 2))
	    (let ((x 5))
	      (macrolet ((foo (z) `(+ ,z ,x)))
			(foo 7)))

    Does this evaluate to 9, 12, or 15?  Does it matter whether the code is being
    "interpreted" or "compiled"?  Can the manual be written in such a way as to
    let this be explicitly undefined?

Well, I think it's always the case that if you run around using
eval-when, things can behave differently "evaluted" than "compiled".  I
definitely do not think things like this should be left undefined; this
is a fundamental issue of evaluation semantics.  I think the only viable
possibility is that it is defined to return 15 evaluated and 9 compiled,
never 12.

    [7] Page 244.  Is READ-DELIMITED-LIST defined to side-affect the syntax
    of its "char" argument in *READTABLE*, even if only temporarily?
    Presumably it would be implemented by temporarily defining a
    right-parenthesis-like readmacro character for "char", using
    UNWIND-PROTECT or something of the sort.  If such an implementation is
    permitted, perhaps this should be mentioned.

I agree, since this is exactly how we were going to implement it (I
haven't gotten around to it yet).