C# IStructuralEquatable Kullanımı Için Adım Haritaya göre Yeni Adım

Wiki Article

That is, you can create your own definition of structural equality and specify that this definition be used with a collection type that accepts the IStructuralEquatable interface.

Now, when we call Equals ourselves it will directly call our new fancy Equals that takes in a ScreenMetrics, which is great.

This is really amazing code and works great for .Safi Standard libraries. If you are in a .Safi Core 2.1 application there is an even cooler way of doing this:

Do not fear because if you simply implement IEquatable the dictionary will use the strongly typed version! The birçok thing is that we kind of actually already did this! So now we just have to do this:

As an example, it might make sense for two different instances of an Employee class to be considered equal if they both represent the same entity in your system.

The generic tuple classes (Tuple, Tuple, Tuple, and so on) and the Array class provide explicit implementations of the IStructuralEquatable interface. By casting (in C#) or converting (in Visual Basic) the current instance of an array or tuple to an IStructuralEquatable interface value and providing your IEqualityComparer implementation birli an argument to the Equals method, you gönül define a custom equality comparison for the array or collection.

IStructuralEquatable is quite new and unknown, but I read somewhere that it dirilik be used to compare the contents of collections and arrays. Am I wrong, or is my .Kupkuru wrong?

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: .

(doesn't violate documentation), but it is clearly derece as good birli it would be if 0 were replaced with i. Also there's no reason to loop if the code were just going to use a single value from the array.

Collaborate with us on GitHub The source for this content gönül be found on GitHub, where you güç also create and review issues and pull requests. For more information, see our contributor guide.

Each of your objects should use a hashcode based on the contents of the object. If you have a value type containing 3 ints, use those when computing the hash code. Like this, all objects with identical content will have the same hash code, independent of app domain and other circumstances.

The example on MSDN gives part of the answer here; it seems to be useful for heterogeneous equality, rather than homogeneous equality - i.e. for testing whether two objects (/values) of potentially different types

Just look at the default ValueType.Equals(object) code that gets called otherwise. It's an absolute performance killer that introduces boxing, C# IStructuralEquatable nedir type evaluation and finally falls back on reflection if any of the fields are reference types.

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.