Error signalling

[SANDRA <LOOSEMORE@UTAH-20.ARPA>]

Let me get this straight:  what is being proposed is that when *user*
code is compiled with safety=0, *system* functions are allowed to bypass
error checking?  Presumably one would have to implement this by having
two sets of system functions, the default one that does the error checks
and another one that doesn't, and make the compiler smart enough to
make the substitution when appropriate.  Bleah -- I can see doing this
manually for a few functions, but trying to cover all the places where
CLtL says "it is an error" seems like a royal pain.  If this is adopted
as part of the standard, I'd also like to see some mechanisms to help
automate the implementation provided.  I think "user" code could also
make good use of the same hooks for optional error checking.

A minor point -- why restrict error checking to all-or-nothing?  Some
assumptions about argument values may be "safer" than others.  If you set
safety=3 you probably want to be extra paranoid and do *more* error
checking than the default.  In other words, the error checks should be
qualified with a safety setting....

-Sandra
-------