Re: Backquote idioms

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

I am not saying that 69 levels of backquote should not be defined.  I am
saying that it should not be encouraged for people writing programs.
(After all, how do program writing programs bootstrap?)  I have no
objections to programs outputing 69 levels of backquoted structure, as
long as a human never has to go near it; only some (possibly other)
program should need to reinterpret it.

As for what CLtL should say, I think it should say that backquote works
to indefinite levels of nesting.  I think it should give the common
idioms.  I think it should say that the deeper the nesting, the greater
the loss of clarity to the human reader and the <some number> (2 for me
and probably most people in this day and age) is what is considered
within the normal style of programming.  [I refer the audience to "The
Program Feature" where it uses the word 'style' many times.]

Note: I finally found where backquote is documented.  it would be nice
if there were a 'backquote' entry in the index.