Re: Mis-features of let

[David Kastrup]

"rgb" <rbielaws@i1.net> writes:

> By implying or outright claiming that let has no effect on the
> print-name, function, or plist cells of the symbol passed to let

let _has_ no effect on the print-name, function of plist cells of the
symbol.

> the manual creates a hazard that someone like me is almost certain
> to fall into. (As I did.)  Nothing warned me of the danger that the
> symbol made available under let is not a normal symbol

It is a normal symbol.

> and use of functions such as fset and put have undefined results
> (which I showed in my examples).

No, you didn't.  You uninterned the symbol, after which it was no
longer available under the name 'foo.

But if you had done (setq woozle 'foo) before uninterning it, woozle
would have continued to be a perfectly valid handle to the symbol,
even though 'foo no longer was able to access it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum