Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Semantics of physical equality
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ 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