What's the difference between “equal (=)” and “identical (==)” in ocaml?

Question

In OCaml , we have two kinds of equity comparisons :

x = y and x == y ,

So what's exact the difference between them?

Is that x = y in ocaml just like x.equals(y) in Java?

and x == y just like x == y (comparing the address) in Java?

Answer 1

I don't know exactly how x.equals(y) works in Java. If it does a "deep" comparison, then the analogy is pretty close. One thing to be careful of is that physical equality is a slippery concept in OCaml (and functional languages in general). The compiler and runtime system are going to move values around, and may merge and unmerge pure (non-mutable) values at will. So you should only use == if you really know what you're doing. At some level, it requires familiarity with the implementation (which is something to avoid unless necessary).

The specific guarantees that OCaml makes for == are weak. Mutable values compare as physically equal in the way you would expect (ie, if mutating one of the two will actually mutate the other also). But for non-mutable values, the only guarantee is that values that compare physically equal ( == ) will also compare as equal ( = ). Note that the converse is not true, as sepp2k points out for floating values.

In essence, what the language spec is telling you for non-mutable values is that you can use == as a quick check to decide if two non-mutable values are equal ( = ). If they compare physically equal, they are equal value-wise. If they don't compare physically equal, you don't know if they're equal value-wise. You still have to use = to decide.

Answer 2

Edit: this answer delves into details of the inner working of OCaml, based on the Obj module. That knowledge isn't meant to be used without extra care (let me emphasis on that very important point once more: don't use it for your program, but only if you wish to experiment with the OCaml runtime). That information is also available, albeit perhaps in a more understandable form in the O'Reilly book on OCaml, available online (pretty good book, though a bit dated now).

The = operator is checking structural equality, whereas == only checks physical equality.

Equality checking is based on the way values are allocated and stored within memory. A runtime value in OCaml may roughly fit into 2 different categories : either boxed or unboxed . The former means that the value is reachable in memory through an indirection, and the later means that the value is directly accessible.

Since int (int31 on 32 bit systems, or int63 on 64 bit systems) are unboxed values, both operators are behaving the same with them. A few other types or values, whose runtime implementations are actually int , will also see both operators behaving the same with them, like unit () , the empty list [] , constants in algebraic datatypes and polymorphic variants, etc.

Once you start playing with more complex values involving structures, like lists, arrays, tuples, records (the C struct equivalent), the difference between these two operators emerges: values within structures will be boxed, unless they can be runtime represented as native ints (1). This necessity arises from how the runtime system must handle values, and manage memory efficiently. Structured values are allocated when constructed from other values, which may be themselves structured values, in which case references are used (since they are boxed).

Because of allocations, it is very unlikely that two values instantiated at different points of a program could be physically equal, although they'd be structurally equal. Each of the fields, or inner elements within the values could be identical, even up to physical identity, but if these two values are built dynamically, then they would end up using different spaces in memory, and thus be physically different, but structurally equal.

The runtime tries to avoid unecessary allocations though: for instance, if you have a function returning always the same value (in other words, if the function is constant), either simple or structured, that function will always return the same physical value (ie, the same data in memory), so that testing for physical equality the result of two invocations of that function will be successful.

One way to observe when the physical operator will actually return true is to use the Obj.is_block function on its runtime representation (That is to say, the result of Obj.repr on it). This function simply tells whether its parameter runtime representation is boxed.

A more contrived way is to use the following function:

let phy x : int = Obj.magic (Obj.repr x);;

This function will return an int which is the actual value of the pointer to the value bound to x in memory, if this value is boxed . If you try it on a int literal, you will get the exact same value! That's because int are unboxed (ie. the value is stored directly in memory, not through a reference).

Now that we know that boxed values are actually "referenced" values, we can deduce that these values can be modified, even though the language says that they are immutable.

consider for instance the reference type:

# type 'a ref = {mutable contents : 'a };;

We could define an immutable ref like this:

# type 'a imm = {i : 'a };;
type 'a imm = {i : 'a; }

And then use the Obj.magic function to coerce one type into the other, because structurally, these types will be reduced to the same runtime representation.

For instance:

# let x = { i = 1 };;
- : val x : int imm = { i = 1 }
# let y : int ref = Obj.magic x;;
- : val y : int ref = { contents = 1 }
# y := 2;;
- : unit = ()
# x
- : int imm = { i = 2 }

There are a few exceptions to this:

• if values are objects, then even seemingly structurally identical values will return false on structural comparison

   # let o1 = object end;; val o1 : < > = <obj> # let o2 = object end;; val o2 : < > = <obj> # o1 = o2;; - : bool = false # o1 = o1;; - : bool = true 

  here we see that = reverts to physical equivalence.

• If values are functions, you cannot compare them structurally, but physical comparison works as intended.

• lazy values may or may not be structurally comparable, depending on whether they have been forced or not (respectively).

   # let l1 = lazy (40 + 2);; val l1 : lazy_t = <lazy> # let l2 = lazy (40 + 2);; val l2 : lazy_t = <lazy> # l1 = l2;; Exception: Invalid_argument "equal: functional value". # Lazy.force l1;; - : int = 42 # Lazy.force l2;; - : int = 42 # l1 = l2;; - : bool = true 

• module or record values are also comparable if they don't contain any functional value.

In general, I guess that it is safe to say that values which are related to functions, or may hold functions inside are not comparable with = , but may be compared with == .

You should obviously be very cautious with all this : relying on the implementation details of the runtime is incorrect (Note: I jokingly used the word evil in my initial version of that answer, but changed it by fear of it being taken too seriously). As you aptly pointed out in comments, the behaviour of the javascript implementation is different for floats (structurally equivalent in javascript, but not in the reference implementation, and what about the java one?).

---

(1) If I recall correctly, floats are also unboxed when stored in arrays to avoid a double indirection, but they become boxed once extracted, so you shouldn't see a difference in behaviour with boxed values.

Answer 3

Is that x = y in ocaml just like x.equals(y) in Java?

and x == y just like x == y (comparing the address) in Java?

Yes, that's it. Except that in OCaml you can use = on every kind of value, whereas in Java you can't use equals on primitive types. Another difference is that floating point numbers in OCaml are reference types, so you shouldn't compare them using == (not that it's generally a good idea to compare floating point numbers directly for equality anyway).

So in summary, you basically should always be using = to compare any kind of values.

Answer 4

根据http://rigaux.org/language-study/syntax-across-languages-per-language/OCaml.html ， ==检查浅平等，和=检查深平等