Değil Hakkında Detaylar bilinen C# IStructuralEquatable Kullanımı
Değil Hakkında Detaylar bilinen C# IStructuralEquatable Kullanımı
Blog Article
The "No" in part 2 of the answer is actually incorrect. Note: Tried editing the answer, but apparently some think that the highest rated answer being incorrect is not reason enough to approve a correction edit.
Bu sayede, muta mimarilarının karınindeki verilerin sıralanması yahut katlaştırılması işlemleri özelleştirilebilir ve yoklama edilebilir hale gelir.
If you want to implement IEquatable in a class hierarchy you gönül use the following pattern. It prevents derived (including sibling) classes from being equal.
Daniel A.A. PelsmaekerDaniel A.A. Pelsmaeker 49.2k2121 gold badges112112 silver badges160160 bronze badges 5 In addition to answers which point to duplicate hashcodes birli is documented behavior, some reasoning and reflection would also lead you to the same conclusion.
Although I think the gains from derece boxing will be less than the cost for having CanEqual. In that case you should seal your types and you no longer need CanEqual. Sealing also saf some performance benefits.
comparer IEqualityComparer An object that determines whether the current instance and other are equal.
Coming soon: Throughout 2024 we will be phasing out GitHub Issues kakım the feedback mechanism for content and replacing it with a new feedback system. For more information see: .
This is very disappointing behaviour from Microsoft; I'm now wondering if I should review the list of cases I've filed and see if other ones I've submitted have been removed...
The reason why you need the C# IStructuralEquatable Nasıl kullanılır IStructuralEquatable is for defining a new way of comparision that would be right for all the objects .
In addition to this awesome blog Frank and I also dicussed all of this awesome in detail on Merge Conflict on episode 111:
Kupkuru on a certain ortam, I'm compelled to issue the standard warning derece to rely on the values of hashcodes or how they are computed, since it is derece guaranteed to be the same across updates or platforms.
The contract of Equals differs from that of IStructuralEquatable, in that it indicates whether 2 objects are logically equal.
There is no need for an equality operator that accepts different types. That should derece 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 not mutually exclusive.