[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: t and nil in pure memory?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: t and nil in pure memory?
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:14:16 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux)

Sam Steingold <address@hidden> writes:

>> * Chong Yidong <address@hidden> [2009-11-20 00:47:18 -0500]:
>> FWIW, in CLISP and CMUCL (unintern nil) and (unintern t) are no-ops
>> returning nil.  Presumably the other CL implementations do likewise.
> This is not true about CLISP (and presumably other CL implementations).
> [2]> (unintern cl:t :cl)
> ** - Continuable Error
> i.e., it IS possible to remove the T symbol (with all the trouble this
> entails).
> As a CLISP maintainer, I don't think T & NIL are special enough.

I am quite appalled to what my reductio ad absurdum argument has lead.
The original topic was in the thread title, and I pointed out that
obarray chains ending in pure memory do not need further modification.
Then it was pointed out that unintern may change the game in that
respect, and I replied that I did not think this much of a concern for t
and nil.

>From then things went downhill.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]