unofficial mirror of bug-guile@gnu.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès)
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: 14792@debbugs.gnu.org, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Subject: bug#14792: Error in manual "(guile-2) Object Properties"
Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 23:21:19 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wqp3mlkg.fsf@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87siztarok.fsf@tines.lan> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Fri, 05 Jul 2013 12:37:47 -0400")

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> The manual states in "Object Properties":
>>
>>        A single object property created by `make-object-property' can
>>     associate distinct property values with all Scheme values that are
>>     distinguishable by `eq?' (including, for example, integers).
>>
>> Integers are not documented to be reliably distinguishable by eq? (which
>> means that equal integers might not be eq).
>
> Indeed, good point!
>
> I think we should change object-properties to use 'eqv?' hash operations
> instead of 'eq?'.  The only advantage to 'eq?' is a marginal efficiency
> benefit, but that's no doubt lost in the noise, not only from the hash
> table operations but from the use of fat mutexes.
>
> The only functional difference between Guile's 'eq?' and 'eqv?' is that
> 'eq?' is not reliable on numbers.  Our manual has been telling people
> for years that integers can be used as keys for object properties.
> Therefore, we should make it so.  IMO, anyway.
>
> What do other people think?

Associating object properties with numbers doesn’t seem useful to me, so
my inclination would be to fix the manual, FWIW.

Ludo’.





  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-06 21:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-04 18:03 bug#14792: Error in manual "(guile-2) Object Properties" David Kastrup
2013-07-05 16:37 ` Mark H Weaver
2013-07-06 21:21   ` Ludovic Courtès [this message]
2013-07-16 15:59     ` Mark H Weaver
2013-07-16 18:46       ` David Kastrup
2013-07-16 18:59         ` Mark H Weaver
2013-07-16 19:30           ` David Kastrup
2013-07-16 19:52             ` Mark H Weaver
2013-07-16 20:01               ` David Kastrup
2013-07-16 18:53       ` Ludovic Courtès
2013-07-27 21:19 ` bug#14792: Actually, this discussion is moot David Kastrup

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87wqp3mlkg.fsf@gnu.org \
    --to=ludo@gnu.org \
    --cc=14792@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=dak@gnu.org \
    --cc=mhw@netris.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).