Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Helmut Eller
(14 Nov 2012 08:51 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Alex Shinn
(14 Nov 2012 09:07 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Helmut Eller
(14 Nov 2012 09:13 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Alex Shinn
(14 Nov 2012 09:26 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Helmut Eller
(14 Nov 2012 10:22 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Marc Feeley
(14 Nov 2012 21:06 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
John Cowan
(14 Nov 2012 21:26 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Marc Feeley
(14 Nov 2012 22:05 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Alex Shinn
(14 Nov 2012 23:46 UTC)
|
[Scheme-reports] equal? Alan Watson (15 Nov 2012 00:40 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] equal?
Jim Rees
(15 Nov 2012 02:36 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] equal?
John Cowan
(15 Nov 2012 16:26 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] equal?
Alan Watson
(15 Nov 2012 16:35 UTC)
|
Re: equal?
Arthur A. Gleckler
(17 Nov 2012 20:32 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
John Cowan
(15 Nov 2012 16:23 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Aaron W. Hsu
(15 Nov 2012 23:47 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Shiro Kawai
(16 Nov 2012 01:16 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Per Bothner
(14 Nov 2012 21:37 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Marc Feeley
(14 Nov 2012 21:49 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Andy Wingo
(04 Jan 2013 13:02 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
John Cowan
(04 Jan 2013 15:42 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Alaric Snell-Pym
(04 Jan 2013 16:30 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Helmut Eller
(15 Nov 2012 07:44 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
John Cowan
(15 Nov 2012 16:04 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] REPL
Per Bothner
(15 Nov 2012 16:17 UTC)
|
> (equal? obj1 obj2) procedure > > The equal? procedure, when applied to pairs, vectors, strings and bytevectors, recursively compares them, returning #t when the unfoldings of its arguments into (possibly infinite) trees are equal as ordered trees, and #f otherwise. It returns the same as eqv? when applied to booleans, symbols, numbers, characters, ports, procedures, and the empty list. If two objects are eqv?, they must be equal? as well. In all other cases, equal? may return either #t or #f. What, precisely, does it mean to say that the "trees are equal". I suggest: "returning #t when the unfoldings of its arguments into (possibly infinite) trees are equal as ordered trees, with corresponding leaves being compared by equal?, and #f otherwise" There may well be better ways to say this. Alternatively, I think one could say that the leafs are compared by eqv? (since structure has been unfolded). Regards, Alan _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports