Re: [Caml-list] Annoying behaviour of OCaml

[Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>]

Zitat von Thomas Fischbacher <tf@functionality.de>:
[...]
>
> compare ((17,23),[|8;9;10|]) ((12,21),[|8;9|]);;

17 > 12

This must give back 1.



>
> (* This situation is quite similar to the one where encountered
>     the problem. We tried to use Array.sort in conjunction with
>     "compare" to sort some abstract specifications of contributions
>     to a sparse matrix of the form ((row,column),array_of_factors)
>     by row, assuming that "compare" would do the job through
>     lexicographical order, but actually, it does not. In this case,
>     the result is +1 rather than -1!
> *)
>
> compare ((17,23),[8;9;10]) ((12,21),[8;9]);;

17 > 12

This must give back 1.


>
> Let us see for comparison how other H.M.-typed languages behave:
> Haskell (hugs):
>
> Haskell 98 mode: Restart with command line option -98 to enable
> extensions
>
> Type :? for help
> Hugs.Base> ((17,23),[8,9,10]) < ((12,21),[8,9])
> False
> Hugs.Base>


# compare 1 2;;
- : int = -1

Is -1 to be interpreted as false or as true?

OCaml:

# ((17,23),[8;9;10]) <  ((12,21),[8;9]);;
- : bool = false


So it's the same as in Haskell.
So it should be what you expected.

Ciao,
   Oliver