From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: gensym vs make-symbol [was: Re: newbie: please don't smash my case ] Date: 2000/07/09 Message-ID: <3172117141705385@naggum.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 644298229 References: <3967677E.B534B640@pacbell.net> <3172082763674005@naggum.net> <8k8t64$374i0$1@fido.engr.sgi.com> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 963163740 18606 195.0.192.66 (9 Jul 2000 17:29:00 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://naggum.no; http://naggum.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Jul 2000 17:29:00 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Rob Warnock | Other than reducing possible confusion while debugging with | "macroexpand", is there any real reason to prefer (gensym "foo") | over (make-symbol "foo") when defining macros that need | non-capturing local variables? Both produce fresh uninterned symbols | which can't conflict with (capture) any other symbol. So in what | circumstances is one preferred over the other, or vice-versa? Well, I use make-symbol exclusively and see no reason for gensym or gentemp at all. I tend to set *print-circle* to t, anyway. #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.