Statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged
> (eq 'a 'b) is false.
> (eq 'a 'a) is true.
> (eq 3 3) might be true or false, depending on the implementation.
In what universe 3 and 3 might not be equal by any metric imaginable? Common Lisp is truly a cursed language.
@lunarised what if I just wanna compare to values? Surely, I could just use `equal` everywhere, except it doesn't always work on symbols.
>Symbols are compared as for eq. This method of comparing symbols can violate the rule of thumb for equal and printed representations, but only in the infrequently occurring case of two distinct symbols with the same print name.
What the literal fuck is this shit?
@lunarised going further, from the same page:
>Two arrays are equal only if they are eq, with one exception: strings and bit-vectors are compared element-by-element.
@pureevil @lunarised This, admittedly, was a serious misstep. In practice it doesn't matter much, because you rarely need to compare arrays other than strings (and many uses of strings are replaced by symbols). But it's weird that the only standard generic function for this is equalp, which also forces case-insensitive character comparisons.
I rarely use anything other than = for numbers, eql for keys in a data structure, and equal for pretty much everything else.
f :: Eq a => a -> a -> IO ()
f x y | x == y = putStrLn "Equal"
| otherwise = putStrLn "Not equal"
How do I do the same in Common Lisp? Exactly..
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!