🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <21495.1993Jan5.174456@bcars148> emcoop@bnr.ca (hume smith) writes:
>prompted by boredom...  the only thing i wonder (it just occurred to me) -
>if there were no unbound symbols when a garbage collection occurred, would
>the special symbol disappear?  it's unlikely to happen, but still...

Hume,
 The first part of your message appears to be missing.

>;;; XLisp knows whether a symbol is bound or not by whether a particular
>;;; symbol is bound to its value or function field.
>;;; that symbol is internal; i.e. in the obarray.  this can make for
>;;; nasties when you want to manipulate the obarray.  it also creates
>;;; certain strange situations:
>;;;  (setq z '*unbound*)  ->  *unbound*
>;;;  (boundp z)  ->  nil
>;;; it would probably be better if that symbol were not in the
>;;; obarray. 

You know, I don't know why it wasn't done that way in the first place. If 
*unbound* was not interned in the first place then everything should work 
fine (however, special treatment would be needed in the gc, as you seem 
to be alluding to, and also in save/restore.

Tom


-- 
Tom Almy
toma@sail.labs.tek.com
Standard Disclaimers Apply