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 (10:45) |
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 same > > > 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