Re: Mis-features of let

[Barry Margolin]

In article <1113942671.973916.309740@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
 "rgb" <rbielaws@i1.net> wrote:

> > The lifetimes of the other cells are totally unaffected by the the
> let,
> 
> This is where you are obviously wrong as I proved in my example.

Are you talking about the example where you bound a symbol with let and 
then used put to add a property, and then you uninterned the symbol?  I 
already explained why that had the behavior you saw, and it has nothing 
to do with let affecting the property list.  It's because when you 
uninterned the symbol and then typed the symbol again, you got a 
different symbol than the one that was in the function.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***