English version
Accueil     À propos     Téléchargement     Ressources     Contactez-nous    

Ce site est rarement mis à jour. Pour les informations les plus récentes, rendez-vous sur le nouveau site OCaml à l'adresse ocaml.org.

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: 2004-02-28 (10:45)
From: Andreas Rossberg <AndreasRossberg@w...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Semantics of physical equality
Michal Moskal <malekith@pld-linux.org> wrote:
> > > But both r.a and r.b are ints, so it is always OK (== and = are the
> > > on ints).
> >
> > That is what the current implementation does, but it is not guaranteed.
> On integers and characters, physical equality is identical to structural
> equality. [1]
> It depends what you mean by ,,guaranteed'' though.
> [1] http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/htmlman/libref/Pervasives.html

You are right, I stand corrected. Int is a special case.

BTW, the manual speaks of "integers". Surely it only holds for plain type
"int", not for other integer types, like big_int, int32, does it?

     - Andreas

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