Do symbols need to be EQ?

[Kenneth Tilton]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Edi Weitz <edi at weitz.de> wrote:

> 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...
>
>
<cough> OK, I myself was at the wrong level of abstraction: EQ is not
worrying about anything other than pointer identity. It is the behavior of
intern and unintern that arranges for two symbols with the same name to be
distinct objects if their packages vary.

-kt

-- 
Kenneth Tilton
54 Isle of Venice Dr
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

ken at tiltontec.com
http://tiltontec.com
@tiltonsalgebra

646-269-1077

"In a class by itself." *-Macworld*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20150703/891503e9/attachment.html>