Situations where the printed form of an expression (i.e, what you'd type into julia REPL, for example) are equivalent aren't "equal" per julia's standards:
Expr(:call, :<, 1, 2) --> :(1 < 2) Meta.show_sexpr(:(1 < 2)) --> (:comparison, 1, :<, 2) Expr(:call, :<, 1, 2) == :(1 < 2) --> FALSE I figure that's expected because the s-expressions behind the scenes aren't accurate. So the workaround is: Expr(:call, :<, 1, 2) == :(<(1,2)) --> TRUE This isn't ideal, but at least there's a way to express the Expr object I want in terms of julia's syntax. Is there another way to make these two semantically equivalent representations actually be equal? Second - a much weirder problem: Meta.show_sexpr(:(symbol.x())) --> (:call, (:., :symbol, (:quote, :x))) Ok, so make an expression: Meta.show_sexpr(Expr(:call, Expr(:., :symbol, Expr(:quote, :x)))) --> (:call, (:., :symbol, (:quote, :x))) Cool. So this time the expression object and the actual julia representation are the exact same. However: Expr(:call, Expr(:., :symbol, Expr(:quote, :x))) == :(symbol.x()) --> FALSE And stragely Meta.show_sexpr(Expr(:call, Expr(:., :symbol, Expr(:quote, :x)))) == Meta.show_sexpr(:(symbol.x())) --> TRUE What is going on!? And how do I get these expressions to agree? Vishesh
