[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#21855: eq?

From: tomas
Subject: bug#21855: eq?
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 2015 14:38:35 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Hash: SHA1

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 02:30:42PM +0100, Atticus wrote:


> Yes you are right that the implementation may treat it as non #f if both
> arguments refer to the same object. In r5rs (and also r6rs) (eq? '(a)
> '(a)) is unspecified (r5rs, page 19) and thus implementation dependant
> but I don't think the behaviour of eq? is consistent in guile.

My hunch is that it *can't* be consistent (see below)

>                                                                As I said
> (eq? '(a b) '(a b)) on its own returns #f and imho there is no reason why eq?
> inside a procedure (in this example in 'multirember') should behave
> different, since the '(a b) in the second argument does not refer to the
> '(a b) of the first argument.

Modulo vagaries of the optimizer :-)

> Since it's not clear if this is a "real" bug, perhaps a further
> discussion at address@hidden would be better. What is the
> recommended proceeding in such a case? A reply with the pseudo-header
> "X-Debbugs-CC: address@hidden"? Or is that not necessary and a
> simple mail to guile-user to discuss this topic is sufficient?

Note that I'm not authoritative in this questions, so you'll have to
wait on someone with more knowledge than me for a more definiteve answer.

But as far as I can gather, those things can get caught in a common
subexpression elimination[1] step, and the results will depend on the
current optimization strategies. That's why r5rs is vague about that.
They (rightfully) don't want to shut off those (in some cases vital)

The take away (for me, at least) is "use eq? just for symbols", at
least unless you know what you are doing.


- -- t
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]