SUB-READ and friends

[Mgr DEC-20s/Dir LCSR Comp Facility <HEDRICK@RUTGERS.ARPA>]

I propose removing this from the ballot pending further discussion.
I agree that the distinction is important.  I don't think having two
versions of every function is a delightful way to do it.  We have a
similar problem in Elisp.  E.g. if a user types ^F anywhere in the
form, he is supposed to get into the editor to edit it when he
finishes typing all the )))'s.  Also there is the EOF problem that has
already been mentioned.  What we do is have a separate form READ-CONTEXT.
This is sort of a special-purpose CATCH: it establishes the context to
which EOF should exit and where ^F should activate.  A recursive
call to READ-CONTEXT is a no-op (more or less).  This allows us to
write things like READLINE in Lisp.  I am not sure that this solves
the problems for Common Lisp, but I do believe we should look for
something better than SUB-READ.
-------