Browse thread
[Caml-list] Semantics of physical equality
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Michal Moskal <malekith@p...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Semantics of physical equality |
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:55:37AM +0100, Andreas Rossberg wrote:
> > type test =
> > {
> > mutable a:int;
> > b:int
> > };;
> >
> > let r = {a=0;b=2};;
> >
> > let x = r and y = r in
> > assert((x.a==y.a)&&(x.b==y.b)&&(x==y))
> > ;;
> >
> > Does this always ok ?
>
> No, only
>
> let x = r and y = r in
> assert (x == y)
>
> Neither r.b nor r.a are mutable, only r itself is.
But both r.a and r.b are ints, so it is always OK (== and = are the same
on ints).
--
: Michal Moskal :: http://www.kernel.pl/~malekith :: GCS !tv h e>+++ b++
: When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson :: UL++++$ C++ E--- a?
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners