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
