Re: Using empty_string as the only "" string

[Miles Bader]

"Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden> writes:
>> I see nothing wrong with that.
>
> I do see it. The issue is not string comparison, but object identity.
> I would be mightily surprised if
>
>  (eq (- 2.0 0.0) (- 2.0 0.0)) => nil
>  (eq (- 2.0 1.0) (- 2.0 1.0)) => nil
>  (eq (- 2.0 2.0) (- 2.0 2.0)) => t
>
> were true.

If so, it's because you misunderstand lisp.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with canonicalizing immutable objects
in lisp (and many implementations in fact do so).

-miles
-- 
Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen