


    I very strongly prefer having the thing after the &rest in a function
    type-specifier refer to each remaining argument, as Steele suggested two
    years ago, rather than having it refer to the value of the &rest parameter,
    as you seem to be assuming.  This is partly because I very strongly prefer
    having the function type-specifier be a description of arguments rather
    than a description of parameters.

    Thus I prefer

    (function + (&rest number) number)


    (function + (&rest (list number)) number)

Hmmm...I never thought about it this way.  If we look at the syntax you
prefer as a special case for talking about the elements in the rest
list, then this is a hideous kludge.  On the other hand, if we look at
this as a way of talking about the type of each of the rest arguments,
then it has a certain elegance.  I wouldn't object, as long as it's
explained this way.

We may still want to adopt a better type specifier for LIST, but that is
a separable issue.

-- Scott