No. Don't let macros expand into prog tags.

[Kent M. Pitman <KMP at MIT-MC>]

No. Macros shouldn't be able to expand to prog tags. An example hopefully 
suffices:

(defmacro do-something-returning-*foo* (&rest ignore) ;dummy definition
 ; just return *foo* for now until we figure out how to implement the something
 '*foo*)

(defun huh? ()
  (prog ()
    (do-something-returning-*foo*) ;supposedly for side-effect
    ...))

this PROG should not be able to be said to have a *FOO* tag. There are probably
many macros that expand into symbols and macro writers should not have to take
the odd context of a prog body expansion into account.

note that this is not contradictory with the idea of letting macros expand
into declare forms because we allow macros to expand only into declare forms
or normal code, but never a mixture. so it's in the semantics of the macro
already that it will be used in a declare position or it won't. macro writers
will not be "surprised" by the context `declare-macros' expand in. the user
will know he has such a macro and will use it right. 

this could be better worded but i'm tired. i hope what i'm saying is 
sufficiently obvious that clarification won't be needed.
-kmp

ps macros expanding into prog tags would also thwart people who wanted to
   implement interpreted go by just doing memq in the relevant prog bodies.