Subject: Re: 6497

From: MON KEY <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 15:35:28 -0400

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Geoff Gole <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Prob. what you meant to was:
>> (progn
>>  (fset 'foo 3)
>>  (symbol-function 'foo))
>
> Indeed, although it's a trivial mistake. The example works just as
> well when the value of foo is a symbol, which it must have been at the
> time I tried it.
>
The triviality of the mistake is apropos my rationale for requesting
that the docstrings be further fleshed out, it is all to easy to find
oneself in these sorts of situations w/re `symbol-function' &
`indirect-function' and no way to reasonably partition an expected
return value(s) from an unexpected one... That you fell pey to it
while trying to illustrate a counter argument to my proposal is (in
some small way) an indicative of the problem.

> Unintern does funny things. Those funny things are not relevant to
> this bug report.

See above.

>
>> The distinction between value cell and
>> function cell confirms a reliance on the details of function
>> representation.
>
> What a bizarre claim. The number of slots in a symbol has nothing to
> do with the representation of functions. Why would it?
>

If the symbol did not have cells it would. Which the "bizarre"
behaviour of the unintern/makunbound examples illustrate.

--
/s_P\