Proposal #5 status

[David C. Plummer <DCP@QUABBIN.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>]

    Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1986  23:16 EDT
    From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

	    4. The macro-expansion for the first form in return value 3, if any.
	Why the macroexpansion of the first form of the body?  Why not the body
	with the first form possibly expanded?

    It saves a CONS.

As if macroexpansion doesn't cons up the wazoo?

    It saves a CONS.

What's a CONS among friends?

    It saves a CONS.

Let the GC take care of it.

    It saves a CONS.

Since when does saving a single CONS dictate language design?

	Why not toss in the kitchen sink?  It looks to me like
	design-by-committee disease is striking.

    Why is it always the guy who endlessly nit-picks every last unimportant
    detail who accuses others of design by committee?

If there isn't at least one nit-picking asshole (who unfortunately
doesn't read the 2 messages about etiquette burried in the middle of 30
messages before responding to half of the remaining 28), there is the
possibility that real issues won't be raised and that what some people
think are unimportant issues might turn out to be huge timebombs.