Carl Eastlund scripsit:
> I'm not sure I understand this claim. I do not view eq? as a hack.
> It's not (solely) intended to be "equal? lite", a faster version of
> equal? restricted to "small" values.
The claim is not that eq? is equal? lite, but that it is eqv? lite.
Essentially, eqv? hides whether the implementation of characters and
numbers uses the Flyweight pattern, the Singleton pattern, or a
combination. eq? exposes this detail in exchange for efficiency
in the case where most comparisons are going to return #f (as I
noted, they are equally efficient where most comparisons return #t.)
--
You annoy me, Rattray! You disgust me! John Cowan
You irritate me unspeakably! Thank Heaven, cowan_at_ccil.org
I am a man of equable temper, or I should http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
scarcely be able to contain myself before
your mocking visage. --Stalky imitating Macrea
Received on Sat Feb 10 2007 - 13:22:13 UTC