another explode bug 4.5b0 - 7.8



> > On the other hand, I think exploden is intended to explode symbols
> > and numbers.  It's unclear exactly what the difference is supposed
> > to be and which one should be used.
> 
> Any chance that exploden = new explode = replacement for original?  If
> you plug exploden into all places where explode is called, does
> anything break?

explode explodes into atoms => (f o o)
exploden originally exploded into <n>umbers => (90 97 97)
  and now explodes into character objects => (#\f #\o #\o)

implode allows all three, but other functions aren't so generous, e.g.
=, equal, concat

n at the *beginning* of a symbol sometimes means "new", e.g. nlambda,
and often means the destructive version of a function, e.g. nconc,
nreverse, nreconc, nsubst.  But not always: ncons = nil-cons. But I
can't think of any cases where it means "new" at the end of a symbol;
perhaps sometimes "n" as in an unlimited number.

       -s