dlw's portability semantics

[Kim.fateman at Berkeley]

Of course portability has many dimensions.  I thought that CL
was supposed to refrain from gratuitous incompatibilities with
maclisp, interlisp, zetalisp, ... .  The purpose of this is presumably
to allow some previously working code to be moved to a CL system.

I would think that (regardless of the definition of LOOP in CL),
an interlisp LOOP  (or FOR, or whatever...)package would be useful.
Did you take umbrage at this notion, dlw?