The individual calls to IEqualityComparer.Equals end and the IStructuralEquatable.Equals method returns a value either when a method call returns false or after all array elements or tuple components have been compared.
= to provide value equality checks (vs the default reference equality check). The MSDN documentation suggests you only do it for immutable types. There are also issues involving interfaces and operator overloading.
If you want to implement IEquatable in a class hierarchy you güç use the following pattern. It prevents derived (including sibling) classes from being equal.
Does anyone know what happens if you do not implement iequtalable when using generic collections? 2
You generic method has a type parameter T but the type is hamiş part of the signature of the function so how is T supposed to be used in the function? Anyway, you sevimli use .Kupkuru tuples or anonymous types to create hash codes by combining values but I am not sure this answers your question.
Your browser isn’t supported anymore. Update it to get the best YouTube experience and our latest features. Learn more
The IEquatable implementation will require one less cast for these classes and bey a result will be slightly faster than the standard object.Equals method that would be used otherwise. Bey an example see the different implementation of the two methods:
şu demek oluyor ki anlayacağınız “int” kadar, “bool” kabilinden değer tipli bir değişken yapılandırmak istiyorsanız struct yapkaloriı tercih edebilirsiniz.
Ray BooysenRay Booysen 29.6k1414 gold badges8686 silver badges111111 bronze badges 6 so when you are dealing with objects, is == assumed to only mean the exact same memory address (same instance)
If you read this entire post and are thinking wow that is a lot of C# IStructuralEquatable Nasıl kullanılır code and steps to remember then do hamiş fear because Dustin told me and showed me that Visual Studio will generate all of this for you!!!!! Check this out:
To achieve this, employee objects with matching SSN properties would be treated bey logically equal, even if they were not structurally equal. Share Improve this answer Follow
Now that our struct is immutable the actual issue comes up when you need to compare these values. When I started to write the code to fix the bug I just decided that "hey I have the old values, I emanet just compare each of them":
There is no need for an equality operator that accepts different types. That should hamiş even compile. So this is a very weak excuse for having a non-generic interface that works with objects.
Being able to specify IStructuralEquatable/IStructuralComparable in such cases is actually useful. It would also be inconvenient to pass a TupleComparer or ArrayComparer everywhere you want to apply this type of comparison. The two approaches are derece mutually exclusive.