Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

   From: Wolfgang Jenkner <wjenkner at inode>
   
   > I predict great confusion about this C-c issue unless you clear away
   > the fog.
   [...]
   
   Thank you very much for the illuminating remarks on C-c and the
   suggestions for a new REPL.
   
   As for
   
   > why one should never write (handler-case ... (condition ...))
   
   pardon my pedantry :-) but I actually did write
   
   >    (we should choose a more specific type of condition, though).

Indeed yes, and I apologise if I gave the impression that you didn't
understand this.  I thought you probably did, but others might not
understand since you so understated the _should_ part of your comment.

I wanted to emphasize that promiscuous condition handling (arbitrarily
taking a nonlocal exit for an arbitrary condition) could break a lisp
implementation.  An application should only handle (i.e. make nonlocal
return for) condition types that it defines privately, or that are
defined with public semantics in the ANS (e.g. cl:error and
cl;:warning).

SIGINT isn't defined by the ANS, but some might consider its intended
meaning to be important.  But maxima developers and users might have
different ideas about the intended semantics.