Re: Using empty_string as the only "" string

[Miles Bader]

"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:
> I don't think there's such thing as "lisp", but certainly I'm not
> misunderstanding what guarantees are made about Emacs Lisp. I'm
> talking about the "guarantee" implicit in its current behaviour.

Huh?  That's not a guarantee, and absolutely should not be taken as one.

There's a _reason_ why eq traditionally has wide latitude for
implementation-dependent/undefined behavior in many cases.

> For the umpteen time, I *know* (eq "" "") => t is not forbidden; just
> unexpected.

I disagree.  I don't think most people expect much one way or the other
in this case, _especially_ because we're talking about lexical constants
(for instance, I expect very few people would be surprised if the
compiler merged various lexical constants).

[The exception of course would be rank beginners, who often --
incorrectly -- _expect_ exactly this behavior.]

> Could we please stop Lisp 101?

(rolls eyes)

-Miles
-- 
Come now, if we were really planning to harm you, would we be waiting here,
 beside the path, in the very darkest part of the forest?