(defmacro foo (&whole w) ...)

[Glenn S. Burke <GSB @ MIT-MC>]

    Date: Mon, 3 Sep 1984  21:02 EDT
    Sender: FAHLMAN@CMU-CS-C.ARPA

    Now, what about arglists with ONLY an &whole argument?  Should we adopt
    Moon's suggestion that these, as a special case, can accept any number
    of subforms, or should we require the explicit &rest arg here as well?
    This special case would eliminate most of the inconvenience I was
    objecting to before, and this use seems clear and intuitive to me, but
    it IS a special case.  How muich does that bother people?  Does anyone
    really want an automatically generated check to ensure that there are NO
    subforms?

It should be entirely self-consistent:  (&whole w) should bind w to 
the macro form, and REQUIRE no arguments.  If what you want is to hack
with arbitrary arguments, just use (&rest args), and i bet you don't want
the car of the form most the time then anyway.