If equality is not needed for the derived class you emanet skip IEquatable but you need to override the CanEqual to prevent it being equal with base classes (unless of course they should be considered equal).
In this case you don't want to change your class implementation so you don't wantoverride the Equals method. this will define a general way to compare objects in your application.
. The best example of this is arrays, which with .NET 4 now implement the IStructuralEquatable interface. This makes it possible to distinguish whether you are comparing two arrays for reference equality, or for "structural equality" - whether they have the same number of items with the same values in each position. Here's an example:
Kırmızın fevkdaki satırlarında da bahsettiğimiz gibi struct C#’ta value type yaratabileceğimiz konstrüksiyondır.
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 has some performance benefits.
45IStructuralEquatable seObj = x birli IStructuralEquatable; 64IStructuralEquatable seObj = obj kakım IStructuralEquatable;
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 hamiş really sure if I really got it.
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...
Fantasy TV series with a male protagonist who uses C# IStructuralEquatable Kullanımı a bow and arrows and saf a hawk/falcon/eagle type bird companion
In Xamarin.Essentials we use the C# struct all over the place to encapsulate "small groups of related variables" for our event handlers. They are groups of veri that don't need to be created by the developers consuming the veri and are only really used for reading the veri.
This member is an explicit interface member implementation. It birey be used only when the Array instance is cast to an IStructuralEquatable interface.
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 yaşama just compare each of them":
Just look at the default ValueType.Equals(object) code that gets called otherwise. It's an absolute performance killer that introduces boxing, 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 hamiş mutually exclusive.