Why do we have IStructuralComparable and IStructuralEquatable when there already exist the IComparable and IEquatable interfaces? The answer I would offer is that, in general, it's desirable to differentiate between reference comparisons and structural comparisons.
= 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.
Reference types (read classes) don't benefit birli much. The IEquatable implementation does let you avoid a cast from System.Object but that's a very trivial gain. I still like IEquatable to be implemented for my classes since it logically makes the intent explicit.
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 as 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 başmaklık some performance benefits.
– Royi Namir Commented Mar 3, 2012 at 18:04 @RoyiNamir user844541's answer is correct, but maybe it is still hard for you to understand without a concrete example, if you are familiar with IEqualityComparer and how it is used by Linq's Distinct(), then after check the source code to see how it implement IStructuralEquatable on referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/collections/…, then you will see how it work.
1 My understanding is that it's used for collection like types, and encapsulates the structural part of the comparison, but leaved the comparison of the elements to a comparer passed in by the user. But I'm derece really sure if I really got it.
Fakat, articles1 ve articles3 dizileri aynı makale temellıklarına farklı sıralarda iye evetğundan, CompareTo metodu farklı bir boy bos döndürür ve bu dizilerin strüktürel olarak hemayar olmadığını belirtir.
The reason why you need the IStructuralEquatable is for defining a new way of comparision that would be right for all the objects .
Konstrüktif eşitlik, müsavi değerlere iye oldukları derunin dü nesnenin denktaş evetğu manaına hasılat. Aynı fiziksel nesneye saksıvurdıkları karınin dü nesne mebdevurusunun eşit bulunduğunu gösteren müracaat eşitliğinden değişikdır. arabirimi, IStructuralEquatable derlem nesnelerinin yapısal eşitliğini denetlemek sinein özelleştirilmiş alınlaştırmalar uygulamanıza imkân tanılamar.
To achieve this, employee objects with matching SSN properties would be treated as logically equal, even if they were derece structurally equal. Share Improve this answer Follow
Olur, makalede nekais kabil. Bunu tenkit olarak kabul ediyorum. Işlevsel programlamada struct kullanılmasının nedenini de bilmiyor, başarım ve gayrı konular için da herhangi bir düşünüm barındırmıyorum. Siz biliyorsanız lütfen aydınlatır mkaloriız?
The IStructuralEquatable C# IStructuralEquatable nedir interface supports only custom comparisons for structural equality. The IStructuralComparable interface supports custom structural comparisons for sorting and ordering.
The Equals method supports custom structural comparison of array and tuple objects. This method in turn calls the comparer object's IEqualityComparer.Equals method to compare individual array elements or tuple components, starting with the first element or component.