+
+ ;; After the initial error/condition/whatever announcement to
+ ;; *ERROR-OUTPUT*, we become interactive, and should talk on
+ ;; *DEBUG-IO* from now on. (KLUDGE: This is a normative
+ ;; statement, not a description of reality.:-| There's a lot of
+ ;; older debugger code which was written to do i/o on whatever
+ ;; stream was in fashion at the time, and not all of it has
+ ;; been converted to behave this way. -- WHN 2000-11-16)
+ (let (;; FIXME: The first two bindings here seem wrong,
+ ;; violating the principle of least surprise, and making
+ ;; it impossible for the user to do reasonable things
+ ;; like using PRINT at the debugger prompt to send output
+ ;; to the program's ordinary (possibly
+ ;; redirected-to-a-file) *STANDARD-OUTPUT*, or using
+ ;; PEEK-CHAR or some such thing on the program's ordinary
+ ;; (possibly also redirected) *STANDARD-INPUT*.
+ (*standard-input* *debug-io*)
+ (*standard-output* *debug-io*)
+ ;; This seems reasonable: e.g. if the user has redirected
+ ;; *ERROR-OUTPUT* to some log file, it's probably wrong
+ ;; to send errors which occur in interactive debugging to
+ ;; that file, and right to send them to *DEBUG-IO*.