Re: Lisp help: problem with uninterned symbols

[Pascal Bourguignon <spam@thalassa.informatimago.com>]

Lars Brinkhoff <lars@nocrew.org> writes:

> Pascal Bourguignon <spam@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> > Doctor, when I do this, it hurts!
> 
> I still need to do it, and I'm willing to endure some pain.
> 
> > You have the solution: encapsulate your compilation units in a progn.
> 
> Not quite.  As I wrote:
> 
> > > that trick doesn't work if foo and bar are defined in two separate
> > > file[s].

It seems  to me that  it's a "feature"  of the byte compiler.  It just
does not  search an uninterned symbols amongst  all uninterned symbols
ever created to find if there's another occurence.

One question: why don't you use an obarray for you symbols?
(I doubt that would change anything thought).

What about  interning all your  symbols as normal emacs  lisp symbols.
Of course, you may want to prefix their names with a "package" name.

Otherwise, I'm afraid you'll have to extend the emacs byte compiler to
allow it to work with various sources of "interned" symbols.


-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__                              .  *   * . * .* .
http://www.informatimago.com/                        .   *   .   .*
There is no worse tyranny than to force             * .  . /\  ()  . *
a man to pay for what he does not                    . .  / .\   . * .
want merely because you think it                    .*.  / *  \  . .
would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein             . /*   o \     .
http://www.theadvocates.org/                        *   '''||'''   .
SCO Spam-magnet: postmaster@sco.com                 ******************