You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We should remove all equality checkers except equal? and eq? and = (as a synonym for equal?). I think this way smol will be more standard. As the Pyret team summarized in their equality table, equal now (i.e., equal?) and identical (i.e., eq?) are presented in many languages, while equal forever is less known. Besides Scheme and Racket, I can’t remember any other languages providing number-specific equality or string-specific equality.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We should remove all equality checkers except
equal?
andeq?
and=
(as a synonym forequal?
). I think this way smol will be more standard. As the Pyret team summarized in their equality table, equal now (i.e.,equal?
) and identical (i.e.,eq?
) are presented in many languages, while equal forever is less known. Besides Scheme and Racket, I can’t remember any other languages providing number-specific equality or string-specific equality.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: