Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!umbc3!alex From: alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: query 'bout defstruct (Common LISP) Message-ID: <974@umbc3.UMD.EDU> Date: 11 May 88 01:34:44 GMT References: <10834@cgl.ucsf.EDU> <5190@bcsaic.UUCP> <28800@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Reply-To: alex@umbc3.UMD.EDU (Alex S. Crain) Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Lines: 32 Keywords: defstruct, symbols, confusion In article <28800@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> krulwich-bruce@CS.YALE.EDU (Bruce Krulwich) writes: >In article <10834@cgl.ucsf.EDU> yee@cgl.ucsf.edu (dave yee) writes: >>... Now for the tricky part. I will have a variable number of >>"pieces" at any given time in the program. So i would like the >>computer to generate new symbols for me. The new symbols would then >>be used as names for the new pieces. > >I have to ask: Why would you ever want to do this?? If you're going >to have a variable number of pieces then you'll want to store them in >a list or table anyway. Why bother GENing symbols?? I did not post the original request, but I have this identical problem for a project that I'm doing now. The motivation behind the gensyms is to avoid a list or table structure. My project is projecting a dynamic knowege base over a neural net built on interrelated symbols. Symbols have the advantage of not having an explicit value when they are generated, so I can bind an undefined object, and define it's value later. The symbol tags also mean that I don't have to jerk around with a table lookup, in that I can use the existing interface (ie: the obstack). Using symbols over list elements or table indexes makes tracing through the resulting data structure a piece of cake. Symbols can have plists. I welcome rebuttles to any of these motives.... -- :alex. nerwin!alex@umbc3.umd.edu alex@umbc3.umd.edu