Common Lisp has various equality functions: =
, eq
, eql
, equal
,
equalp
, string-equal
, char-equal
… but what are the differences??
We tell you everything, with examples.
As usual, this is best read on the Common Lisp Cookbook (a new page added on August, 2024). This is where it will get the updates.
In short:
=
is only for numbers andequal
is the equality predicate that works on many things.- you can’t overload built-in operators such as
=
orequal
for your own classes, unless you use a library. - when you manipulate strings with functional built-ins (
remove-if
,find
…) and you are surprised to get no results, you probably forgot the:test
key argument:(find "foo" '("hello" "foo") :test #'equal)
.
Table of Contents
=
is for numbers (beware ofNIL
)eq
is low-level. Think pointers, position in memory.eql
is a bettereq
also for numbers of same types and characters.equal
is also for strings (for objects whose printed representation is similar).equalp
is case-insensitive for strings and for numerical value of numbers.- Other comparison functions
- Credits
- See also
=
is for numbers (beware of NIL
)
The =
function compares the value of two or more numbers:
(= 2 2) ;; => T
(= 2 2.0 2 2) ;; => T
(= 2 4/2) ;; => T
(= 2 42) ;; => NIL
but =
is only for numbers. In the below example we get an error with
the interactive debugger. We show the error message, the condition
type, and the backtrace, from SBCL.
(= 2 NIL)
;; => ERROR:
The value
NIL
is not of type
NUMBER
when binding SB-KERNEL::Y
[Condition of type TYPE-ERROR]
Restarts:
…
Backtrace:
0: (SB-KERNEL:TWO-ARG-= 2 NIL) [external]
1: (SB-VM::GENERIC-=)
2: (= 2 NIL)
Note how SB-KERNEL::Y
refers to an internal variable of the
compiler. No, you don’t have a Y
in your code.
As a consequence, if your equality check with numbers might contain
NILs, you can use equalp
, or encapsulate your variables with (or …
0)
, or do prior checks with (null …)
.
eq
is low-level. Think pointers, position in memory.
(eq x y) is true if and only if x and y are the same identical object.
eq
works for symbols and keywords.
Those are true:
(eq :a :a)
(eq 'a 'a)
If we compare an object with itself, it is eq
:
(let ((x '(a . b)))
(eq x x))
;; => T
eq
does not work to compare numbers, lists, strings and other
compound objects. It looks like it can, but it isn’t specified to be
true for all implementations.
As such, eq
works for numbers on my implementation, but it might not on yours:
(eq 2 2) ;; => T or NIL, this is not specified
An implementation might allocate the exact same position in memory for the same number, but it might not. This isn’t dictated by the standard.
Likewise, these might depend on the implementation:
(eq '(a . b) '(a . b)) ;; might be true or false.
(eq #\a #\a) ;; true or false
Comparing lists or strings are false:
(eq (list 'a) (list 'a)) ;; => NIL
(eq "a" "a") ;; => NIL
those strings (vectors of characters) are not equal by eq
because the compiler might have
created two different string objects in memory.
eql
is a better eq
also for numbers of same types and characters.
The
eql
predicate is true if its arguments areeq
, or if they are numbers of the same type with the same value, or if they are character objects that represent the same character.
In terms of usefulness, we could say that eq
< eql
.
Now this number comparison is true:
(eql 3 3) ;; => T
but beware, this one isn’t because 3 and 3.0 are not of the same type (integer and single float):
(eql 3 3.0) ;; => NIL
for complex numbers:
(eql #c(3 -4) #c(3 -4)) ;; is true.
(eql #c(3 -4.0) #c(3 -4)) ;; is false (because of -4.0 and -4)
Comparing two characters works:
(eql #\A #\A) ;; => T
And we still can’t compare lists or cons cells:
(eql (cons 'a 'b) (cons 'a 'b)) ;; => NIL
equal
is also for strings (for objects whose printed representation is similar).
The
equal
predicate is true if its arguments are structurally similar (isomorphic) objects. A rough rule of thumb is that two objects areequal
if and only if their printed representations are the same.
Again, conceptually, we could say that eq
< eql
< equal
.
We can still not compare numbers of different types:
(equal 3 3.0) ;; => NIL
but we can now compare lists and cons cells. Indeed, their printed representation is the same. No matter this time if they are different objects in memory.
(equal (cons 'a 'b) (cons 'a 'b)) ;; => T
(equal (list 'a) (list 'a)) ;; => T
We can compare strings!
(equal "Foo" "Foo") ;; => T
No matter if they are different objects in memory:
(equal "Foo" (copy-seq "Foo")) ;; => T
Case is important. Indeed, “FOO” doesn’t print the same as “foo”:
(equal "FOO" "foo") ;; => NIL
equalp
is case-insensitive for strings and for numerical value of numbers.
Two objects are
equalp
if they areequal
; if they are characters and satisfychar-equal
, which ignores alphabetic case and certain other attributes of characters; if they are numbers and have the same numerical value, even if they are of different types; or if they have components that are allequalp
.
Continuing with our ordering, we could say that eq
< eql
< equal
< equalp
.
We can compare two numbers, looking at their value, even if they have different types:
(equalp 3 3.0) ;; => T
Now look at our string comparison:
(equalp "FOO" "foo") ;; => T
equalp
is case *in*sensitive for strings because a string is a
sequence of characters, equalp
compares all of its components and it
uses char-equal
for characters, which ignores the characters’ case.
Other comparison functions
null
The function null
returns true if its one argument is NIL.
eql
is used by default by many CL built-ins
This is a common issue for newcomers who manipulate strings. Sometimes, you use a CL built-in function and you are puzzled why you get no result.
Look at this:
(find "foo" (list "test" "foo" "bar"))
;; NIL
we want to know if the string “foo” exists in the given list. We get NIL. What’s happening?
This CL built-in function, as all that work for sequences, use eql
for testing each elements. But (eql "foo" "foo")
won’t work for
strings. We need to use another test function.
All of those functions accept a :test
keyword parameter, that allows
you to change the test function:
(find "foo" (list "test" "foo" "bar") :test #'equal)
;; => "foo"
We can also use equalp
to ignore the string case:
(find "FOO" (list "test" "foo" "bar") :test #'equalp)
;; => "foo"
You will find more examples about those built-in functions in data-structures.
char-equal
We have a special operator to compare characters:
char-equal
ignores alphabetic case and certain other attributes of characters
strings and string-equal
string-equal
has a specific function signature to compare strings
and substrings (you can specify the start and end boundaries for
the comparison), but be aware that it uses char-equal
, so the
comparison is case-*in*sensitive. And it works with symbols.
(string-equal :foo "foo") ;; => T
(string-equal :foo "FOO") ;; => T
This is its docstring:
STRING-EQUAL
This is a function in package COMMON-LISP
Signature
(string1 string2 &key (start1 0) end1 (start2 0) end2)
Given two strings (string1 and string2), and optional integers start1,
start2, end1 and end2, compares characters in string1 to characters in
string2 (using char-equal).
See also our page strings.html.
Compare trees with tree-equal
Here you have it:
tree-equal
returns T if X and Y are isomorphic trees with identical leaves
Compare function table: to compare against (this), use (that) function
To compare against... Use...
Objects/Structs EQ
NIL EQ (but the function NULL is more concise and probably cheaper)
T EQ (or just the value but then you don't care for the type)
Precise numbers EQL
Floats =
Characters EQL or CHAR-EQUAL
Lists, Conses, Sequences EQ (if you want the exact same object)
EQUAL (if you just care about elements)
Strings EQUAL (case-sensitive), EQUALP (case-insensitive)
STRING-EQUAL (if you throw symbols into the mix)
Trees (lists of lists) TREE-EQUAL (with appropriate :TEST argument)
How to compare your own objects AKA built-in functions are not object-oriented
Use eq
to check that two objects are identical, that they are the same object in memory
If you want to compare your own objects with a logic of your own (for
example, two “person” objects will be considered equal if they have
the same name and surname), you can’t specialize a built-in function
for this. Use your own person=
or similar function, or use a library (see our links below).
While this can be seen as a limitation, not using generic functions has the advantage of being (much) faster.
As an example, let’s consider the person
class from the CLOS tutorial:
(defclass person ()
((name
:initarg :name
:accessor name)))
Let’s create two person objects, they have the same name but are two different objects:
(defparameter *p1* (make-instance 'person :name "me"))
(defparameter *p2-same-name* (make-instance 'person :name "me"))
Use eq
to compare two objects:
(eq *p1* *p1*) ;; => T
(eq *p1* *p2-same-name*) ;; => NIL
We use our own person=
method to compare different objects and decide when they are equal:
(defmethod person= (p1 p2)
(string= (name p1) (name p2)))
(person= *p1* *p2-same-name*) ;; => T
If you really want to use =
or equal
, use a library, see below.
Credits
- CLtL2: Equality Predicates
- the compare table: Leslie P. Polzer on Stack-Overflow
See also
- equals - generic equality for Common Lisp.
- generic-cl - a generic function interface to CL built-ins.
- we can use
=
or<
on our own custom objects.
- we can use