>I've seen most of the style arguments based on philosophy posted
>on this thread, but there is one argument I have not yet seen.
>The most convincing argument for me to run with the first style is
>what the lisp itself says:

>user(1): (pprint '(defun build-upward-closures ()
>  (loop for k from *maxplay* downto 0 do
>    (setf (aref *upward-closures* k)
>          (let ((result (ash 1 k)))
>            (loop for i from 0 below *n* do
>              (let ((k1 (logior k (ash 1 i))))
>                (when (> k1 k)
>                  (setf result (logior result (aref *upward-closures* k1)))
>                )
>              )
>            )
>            result
>          )
>    )
>  )))

>(defun build-upward-closures ()
>  (loop for k from *maxplay* downto 0 do
>        (setf (aref *upward-closures* k)
>              (let ((result (ash 1 k)))
>                (loop for i from 0 below *n* do
>                      (let ((k1 (logior k (ash 1 i))))
>                        (when (> k1 k)
>                          (setf result
>                                (logior result
>                                        (aref *upward-closures* k1))))))
>                result))))
>user(2):

>In general, any lisp code that can be manipulated as data is
>easier to work with if it matches the result of its pretty-printed
>output.  Now it is true that the pretty printer can be customized,
>and thus you're not going to get exactly the same output if you
>change, say, indentation rules and other attributes.  But for all of
>its customizability, I know of no way to tell the pretty-printer to
>dangle its closing parens.  Was this an oversight, or by design?