Re: scm_intern_obarray_soft broken?

[Mikael Djurfeldt <mdj at mdj dot nada dot kth dot se>]

Dirk Herrmann <dirk@ida.ing.tu-bs.de> writes:

> scm_intern_obarray_soft seems completely broken to me:  If the function is
> called in order to enter a symbol into scm_symhash, we may actually end up
> with the symbol entered in scm_weak_symhash.
> 
> Does anybody know if this is the intended behaviour?  I don't know about
> the exact difference between whether a symbol is in scm_symhash or in
> scm_weak_symhash, but it seems like this could cause data to be garbage
> collected which wasn't intended to be.

I think the current code is weird, but bug-free.

As far as I can remember, after a certain point during boot, it is OK,
and intended, that everything new goes into scm_weak_symhash.

I don't think we should touch symbols.c at all.

This code will be replaced with Jost's code anyway.

Because it is so weird, and because the current module system is so
weird, changing this code now is likely to introduce bugs, and for no
gain at all, since it is going to be replaced.

Better to work on other parts of Guile currently.