Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:14:12 -0700
Jon Harrop <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Observationally, A is identical to B if both are equal and remain equal
under any change to A. If I can't change A, equality implies identity...
Surely two different expressions can evaluate to equal values that are
distinct in memory (not identical)?
Well, these like identity and equality are only meaningful within the
language semantics. In a pure FPL, two expressions have the same
identity if the denote the same value. Memory locations may be part
of the implementation but aren't in the language semantics. Otherwise
constant integers could change their identity every time the GC moved
them.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Rainer Joswig
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- References:
- Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Rene de Visser
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Rainer Joswig
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Stuart Cook
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Rainer Joswig
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: rossberg
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Rainer Joswig
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Joachim Durchholz
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Jon Harrop
- Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Prev by Date: Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Next by Date: Re: Is there a parser combinator library (or lisp macro solution) for LR parsing?
- Previous by thread: Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Next by thread: Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|