🚀 go-pugleaf

In <13142@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>, toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) said:
> Hume,
>  The first part of your message appears to be missing.

but apearances can be deceiving!  it was all there.  i guess i really
should be ambitious enough to capitalise.

btw Tom, have you gotten any mail from me lately, like, the last
few days?  i've got a sneaking suspicion my mail connections are
downn...

> 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.

what i was actually alluding to was that once my slip of excessively-commented
code was run, if ever EVERY symbol was boundp and fboundp (and whatever other
pointers *unbound* got used in), AND a gc was done, the special symbol would
be collected, probably making ripe chunder later.

i've been theorizing a little on how to fix it... i'm wondering, if s_unbound pointed
to a static (C compile-time) piece of memory, what would hapen.  surely the "figure
out what's used" part of gc would just mark it used, and the "build freelist" part
would just not see it, it not being in a segment.  so it should work.

i've obviously got to wade through the gc code and find out.

it does, still, need treatment in save/restore.

another possibility - now that nil is an actual symbol, how hard would it be to
use the NUL pointer?
--
Hume Smith                      Wenn ich des Tages nicht dreimal
hume.smith@acadiau.ca           mein Schaelchen Coffee trinken darf,
emcoop@bnr.ca              //   so werd' ich ju zu meiner Qual
                         \X/    wie ein verdorrtes Ziegenbraetchen.