On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 10:49:42PM +0200, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote: > On Oct 7 2011, Alan Post wrote: > > >Given the odd behavior you're experiencing, I would suggest > >expanding your test case: > > Good point. Here the results: > > Now watch the interesting value (should be all 4 true a/a,i/i,a/i,i/a): > #t#t#f#f > > That is: > (equal? *all-chars* *all-chars*) > => #t > (equal? `(/ ,(integer->char 0) > ,(integer->char #xD7FF) > ,(integer->char #xE000) > ,(integer->char #x10FFFF)) > `(/ ,(integer->char 0) > ,(integer->char #xD7FF) > ,(integer->char #xE000) > ,(integer->char #x10FFFF))) > => #t > (equal? *all-chars* > `(/ ,(integer->char 0) > ,(integer->char #xD7FF) > ,(integer->char #xE000) > ,(integer->char #x10FFFF))) > => #f > (equal? `(/ ,(integer->char 0) ,(integer->char #xD7FF) > ,(integer->char #xE000) ,(integer->char #x10FFFF)) > *all-chars* ) > => #f > > Or: comparison of just initialised value fails to be equal? > to the literal value. > > Can you/anyone reproduce this result? >
It would assume, looking at this output, that *all-chars* is not the value of the string you're comparing it too: * it compares #t to itself. * the list compare #t to itself. * they don't ocmpare #t to each other. This suggests that *all-chars* has some value other than what you'r comparing it to. -Alan -- .i ma'a lo bradi cu penmi gi'e du _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
