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 11:45:53AM +0100, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > 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? Nope, these are boxed. # let x = Int32.of_int 42;; val x : int32 = 42l # let y = Int32.of_int 42;; val y : int32 = 42l # x = y;; - : bool = true # x == y;; - : bool = false I mean it is not guaranteed, and moreover is not the case in the current implementation. -- : 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