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: | 2004-02-28 (10:10) |
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