I do not think that (1 to: 4) and #(1 2 3 4) should be equal. Let me put it a little more strongly: it's a bug. Taking a := 1 to: 4. b := Array withAll: a. c := OrderedCollection withAll: b. in the two other Smalltalk systems I just tried, no two of these are equal. This is what the ANSI Smalltalk standard requires. Ceteris paribus, two sequences are equivalent if and only if 1. they are instance of the same class 2. they have the same size 3. corresponding elements are equivalent. It is fairly common for Smalltalk systems to distinguish between "these sequences are equivalent" and "these sequences have the same elements in the same order", with no consensus on the name of the second method. One calls it #sameContentsAs:, Squeak #hasEqualElements:.
On 31 July 2018 at 00:07, werner kassens <wkass...@libello.com> wrote: > Hi, > i guess i can subsume almost everything i know about hashes in one > sentence: > it is my understanding that two objects that are equal (obj1=obj2. > -->true) have to have the same hash value (which is used for some > collection types), whereas objects where obj1=obj2 returns false should > have different hash values although it may happen that they have the > same one. > > now here things don't turn out exactly like that: > (1 to:4) = #(1 2 3 4). "true" > (1 to:4)hash = #(1 2 3 4)hash. "false" > well ok, actually these results make - pfffh, in a certain way - sense > to me, but i wonder what arguments the people in the know would use to > defend that result, if i would have another opinion? > werner > > >
