Unfortunately, that's only true when eq? produces #t, which probably isn't an issue when using eq? directly, but can be when using memq or similar. This benchmark suggests about a 10x speed difference when the symbols are different: http://pasterack.org/pastes/94877
Sam On Thu, Sep 17, 2015, 9:52 PM Robby Findler <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, if you use equal? in those cases, you'll get the same > performance behavior and you will have fewer eq?s to audit when things > go wonky. > > ;) > > Robby > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Neil Van Dyke <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Whew. :) I only rarely have a non-symbol use for `eq?`, but I use `eq?` > > heavily for symbols in everyday application code. > > > > Robby Findler wrote on 09/17/2015 09:27 PM: > >> > >> eq? on symbols is a special part of the specification and that seems > >> benign to me, all things considered. The "giant hash in the sky" that > >> makes sure that works isn't exactly trouble free, but we seem to have > >> it under control. > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Racket Users" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
