Re: t and nil in pure memory?

[David Kastrup]

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

>>     I am skeptical that we have everything in place that is required to
>>     properly support
>
>>     (unintern nil)
>>     (unintern t)
>
>> We should make them give errors -- that's much easier than
>> making them "work".  There's no reason they should be allowed.
>
> Rather I think there's no reason to spend any time either making them
> work or making them signal an error.

Well, you claimed that uninterning them was a concern for having the
obarray links end in pure memory.

-- 
David Kastrup