On Tue 19 Jun 2012 05:52, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
Time for my next RTL question - how do I use the toplevel-ref
instruction? It looks like I need to make a variable object in the
instruction stream, or at a known offset from it. I think I should use
either
I read
Numbers and characters are not equal to any other object, but the
problem is they're not necessarily `eq?' to themselves either.
This is even so when the number comes directly from a variable,
(let ((n (+ 2 3)))
(eq? n n)) = *unspecified*
I
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 12:40, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Numbers and characters are not equal to any other object, but the
problem is they're not necessarily `eq?' to themselves either.
This is even so when the number comes directly from a variable,
(let ((n (+ 2
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 12:40, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Numbers and characters are not equal to any other object, but the
problem is they're not necessarily `eq?' to themselves either.
This is even so when the number comes directly from
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
I think it is completely absurd. It would mean, for example, that
(memq x (list x))
is generally unspecified. It would mean that things like
(eq? (car x) (car x))
are generally unspecified even when x is a pair.
So that we can have (eq? x x) but not (eq?
Hi,
[bunch of examples]
Which of the above would you consider unspecified?
As the Scheme standard clearly states, all the ones comparing numbers
with eq?. You find some of them surprising; that is your problem ;) The
answer is to not compare numbers with eq?.
Regards,
Andy
--
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Hartwig mand...@gmail.com skribis:
I have noticed that the (web uri) module does not handle domain names
that start with numbers:
scheme@(guile-user) (string-uri http://123.com;)
$1 = #f
This one was fixed around commit 1868309a9e34a04a5b3020e147d0ce029038b290.
Thanks,
Hello,
I think you're talking past each other a little bit. Andy is saying
that the Scheme standard doesn't specify eq? on numbers. David is
saying that an object should always be eq? to itself, no matter what
object.
I believe David's claim is that Guile should guarantee that a variable
is eq?
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 15:41, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I believe David's claim is that Guile should guarantee that a variable
is eq? to itself, even though the standard doesn't.
We could guarantee this, but it would prevent a number of interesting
and permissible optimizations,
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
Hi,
[bunch of examples]
Which of the above would you consider unspecified?
As the Scheme standard clearly states, all the ones comparing numbers
with eq?. You find some of them surprising; that is your problem ;) The
answer is to not compare numbers
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 15:41, Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com writes:
I believe David's claim is that Guile should guarantee that a variable
is eq? to itself, even though the standard doesn't.
We could guarantee this, but it would prevent a number of
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 16:31, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
interesting and permissible optimizations
Name one.
FWIW, eta-conversion (for primitives). Copy propagation for the
purposes of inlining (a la Waddell). Storing numbers in unboxed form,
and
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
If the Scheme standard states that
(and (pair? x) (not (eq? (car x) (car x
can return #t in a conforming implementation, that means that the
standard failed to do its job for weeding
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 16:31, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
interesting and permissible optimizations
Name one.
FWIW, eta-conversion (for primitives). Copy propagation for the
purposes of inlining (a la Waddell).
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 16:27, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
I am not comparing numbers when writing (eq? x x).
I am checking the identity of an object. Whether that object is a
number or not, and if so, what value it has, is irrelevant.
x is not an
Pierpaolo Bernardi olopie...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 4:27 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
If the Scheme standard states that
(and (pair? x) (not (eq? (car x) (car x
can return #t in a conforming implementation, that means that
On Wed 20 Jun 2012 17:16, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Whatever. It is quite clear that you can't be bothered with caring
about sane semantics when the standard gives you a free pass.
Forget I asked. I don't see the point in further serving as a target
for pseudointellectual mockery.
17 matches
Mail list logo
