Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Jon Harrop <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:56:33 +0100
Paul Rubin wrote:
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.
Does that not have a grave cost in terms of memory consumption?
Otherwise constant integers could change their identity every time the GC
moved them.
OCaml has that behaviour:
# 3l == 3l;;
- : bool = false
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
OCaml for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/?usenet
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: dbenson
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Joachim Durchholz
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Markus E.L. 2
- 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
- Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- From: Paul Rubin
- Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Prev by Date: Re: Interval library + arbitrary precision library + functional language = something worth having?
- Next by Date: Re: Interval library + arbitrary precision library + functional language = something worth having?
- Previous by thread: Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Next by thread: Re: Glasgow haskell vs. Lispworks
- Index(es):