Do symbols need to be EQ?

[Edi Weitz]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Kenneth Tilton <ken at tiltontec.com> wrote:
> EQ, as you adroitly demonstrated, worries about all sorts of things,
> including a symbol's package.

Which is part of what has me confused.  Up until now I would have said
that the "problem" of EQ is that it doesn't worry about _enough_
things.  (EQ 3/4 3/4) is NIL because EQ doesn't bother to look "into"
the numbers (as EQL does) but just superficially checks their "pointer
identity".  And for symbols that's not the case?  Hmmm...