[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: '#:foobar versus (make-symbol "FOOBAR")
- To: dmg@goldilocks.LCS.MIT.EDU
- Subject: RE: '#:foobar versus (make-symbol "FOOBAR")
- From: Kevin Gallagher <Gallagher@gilgamesh.cs.umass.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 91 12:31:07 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- In-reply-to: <9103081647.AA04998@blaze.LCS.MIT.EDU>
- Reply-to: Gallagher@cs.umass.edu
- Sender: Gallagher@Gilgamesh
Btw, you're assumptions about what compilers do may or may not be wrong
depending on a number of things such as OPTIMIZE declarations and
implementation specific features. MACL, for example, can optionally save
1) Obviously, run time code won't be using the local maps.
2) Why do you think the compiler considers uninterned symbols
to be different than any other symbol with respect to local bindings.
A typical use of uninterned symbols is to name a macros hidden locals.
So it seems to me like a reasonable thing for the compiler to do. I
tested this by running an example on two lisps that were close at hand
(MACL wasn't one of them), and they behaved as I described. This is
admittedly shakey ground.