> And, lest you think that confusing = and .equals is just a noobie > mistake, let me point out what seems to be a bug in > PersistentHashMap.java I just found based on this same confusion. In > particular, Objects are located in the map using Clojure's hash > function, which is equivalent to .hashCode (and 0 for nil). But, the > equality check done on line 561 is done using Util.equal, which is > equivalent to Clojure = ...
My apologies, this is not a bug. Util.equals is not the same as Clojure =, I was looking at Util.equiv. Sorry to drag this up again, but just in case anyone was following this I figured I should follow up. > Actually, I'd be happy with a single type of hashing > compatible with = rather than .equals if the idea of multiple flavors > is not popular (as I imagine it probably won't be). Also, I back down on this. Clojure maps implement Java.util.Map, and thus should be using .equals for equality (as they are now). I still might like variants of maps that use identical? or =, but not as the default. -Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
