At least some respectable lispers say to think about tail calls
semantically, not syntactically.  In their eyes, the tail call isn't
an optimization; to create the extra stack frame is a wasteful
pessimization.

I somewhat agree with Kaz; IMO the tail position is a subtlety and it
does not explicitly show intent.  I would like an explicit (tailcall
#'f ...) that acts like funcall, but the compiler signals if the
function is not in a tail call position.  This tailcall form is more
to document intent to other humans (and to catch poorly-written
macros, like a naive TRACE) than it is to help the compiler.  A
corresponding notailcall would force the extra stack frame (presumably
for debugging).

A different name would help too.  Something that better evokes the
elision of a stack frame.  Declarations might work; but CL does not
support them in arbitrary locations...

Maybe I just haven't written enough Scheme code to get a feel for the
culture.  C++ has its share of gotchas that I've learned to live with.