It's normally expected that if you implement IEquatable.Equals you will also override Object.Equals to be consistent. In this case how would you support both reference and structural equality?

Important Some information relates to prerelease product that may be substantially modified before it’s released. Microsoft makes no warranties, express or implied, with respect to the information provided here.

Will feeblemind affect the original creature's body when it was cast on it while it was polymorphed and reverted to its original form afterwards?

Makaslamakmızın yukarıdaki satırlarında da bahsettiğimiz üzere struct C#’ta value type yaratabileceğimiz yapıdır.

Bey 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.

I never put much thought into using a struct over a class or even additional optimizations because to me the struct was optimized already. When I was working on fixing a bug in our DeviceDisplay to hamiş trigger new events unless a value changed a whole new world opened up to me.

The IEquatable implementation will require one less cast for these classes and as 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:

The following example creates two identical 3-tuple objects whose components consist of three Double values. The value of the second component is Double.NaN. The example then calls the Tuple.Equals method, and it calls the IStructuralEquatable.Equals method three times. The first time, it passes the default equality comparer that is returned by the EqualityComparer.

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)

I had the same question. When I ran LBushkin's example I was surprised to see that I got a different answer! Even though that answer katışıksız 8 upvotes, it is wrong. After a lot of 'reflector'ing, here is my take on things.

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, 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 C# IStructuralEquatable Temel Özellikleri are hamiş mutually exclusive.