Oh, sorry-- it was changed before you sent your message. :) Robby
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, ozzloy <ozz...@gmail.com> wrote: > wow, that was really fast. thanks! > > On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:37, Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> > wrote: >> >> This has been changed in the current pre-release version, available >> from git and via a nightly build: >> >> http://pre.racket-lang.org/installers/ >> >> Robby >> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 3:22 PM, ozzloy <ozz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > i was writing a unit test which had something analogous to the >> > following: >> > (check-equal? #rx"a" #rx"a") => raises exn:test:check >> > so i checked and sure enough: >> > (equal? #rx"a" #rx"a) => #f >> > which led me to look for a regexp-equal? so i could do (check >> > regexp-equal? >> > #rx"a" #rx"a") >> > that doesn't exist, so i wrote one: >> > (define (regexp-equal? a b) >> > (and (and (regexp? a) >> > (regexp? b)) >> > (or (and (pregexp? a) >> > (pregexp? b)) >> > (and (not (pregexp? a)) >> > (not (pregexp? b)))) >> > (equal? (object-name a) >> > (object-name b)))) >> > why not just have (equal? #rx"a" #rx"a") => #t ? >> > anticipated objection: "what should equal? mean for two regexps?" >> > it should mean that the patterns are identical, totally ignoring that >> > two >> > non-identical patterns might match exactly the same set, like #rx"(a|b)" >> > and >> > #rx"(b|a)". >> > i see in the docs that there is an internal regexp value. if those are >> > what >> > i think they are, i propose equal? just compares those for regexes. >> > >> > _________________________________________________ >> > For list-related administrative tasks: >> > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users >> > > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
