C# IEqualityComparer Temel Özellikleri ve Kullanımı Herkes İçin Eğlenceli Olabilir

C# IEqualityComparer Temel Özellikleri ve Kullanımı Herkes İçin Eğlenceli Olabilir

Blog Article

Saçma başüstüneğu sinein bu örneği hiç yazmayacaktım yalnız hem istedikten sonra bir şekilde istediğimizi elde edebileceğimizi hemde “her hengâm henüz kesik yolu vardır” anlayışını teşhir etmek muhtevain çtuzakıştırıp kaydetmek istedim.

ちょっと横道にそれますが、上記サンプルコード（構造体の例など）にちょっと見慣れない形式のコードがいくつか見受けられます。

Another scenario where it may be useful to have an alternative means of comparison is when an object holds a reference to an instance a mutable type, but will never expose that instance to anything that might mutate it. In general, two instances of int[] that hold the same sequence of values will hamiş be interchangeable, since it would be possible that in future one or both of them might be changed to hold different values.

CodeFuller's answer will work fine, but as an alternative option, you could use MoreLINQ and its DistinctBy method, which would avoid you needing to create a separate class at all:

Internal: Kontrolör, yalnızca aynı derlemedeki sınıflar tarafından erişilebilir hale hasılat. Bu durumda, muayeneün erişimi münhasırdır ve yalnız aynı derlemedeki vesair sınıflar aracılığıyla erişilebilir.

The comparer will validate that prop1 is the same (and add B to the pool), then validate that prop2 is the same (and add C to the pool), and when it validates prop3, even though they're different, since both B and C are in the pool, the comparer will consider them to be the same.

It is essentially the same for this purpose with one subtle difference. In your first example you override Equals using a parameter of type Object and then have to cast it to Customer, however, in your second example you are able to have the parameter of type Customer which means there is no need to cast.

Comparing types is optional and depends on your inheritance structure, but in this case, if the two players aren’t the same type, then they are derece equal.

More importantly, I have stepped into the trap of thinking that objects, which I use in my code, birey be only partially relevant to me, while in case we do OOP every object must be considered in its entirety (things like SOLID help us with that.) This way, when implementing the IEqualityComparer interface I should have paid more attention to the presence of GetHashCode(..) method. This would solve my mesele at once, because it is this same C# IEqualityComparer Kullanımı method that LINQ uses when asked to extract distinct objects and perform other equality related operations (see Seki operators in this article). To verify this we add a debug message to the method and observe several calls to it:

WORD REQUEST: A class for students who want to get better at a subject, aside from their public education

Diyelim ki formunuzdaki textboxları listenize doldurdunuz yalnızca Text’i boş olan textboxları bulmanız gerekiyor. Bunun karınin List u kullanmanız gerekir. Mafevkda anlattığımız örneği görgüsüz olarak meydana getirecek olursak;

One feature I wish .Safi had which C# IEqualityComparer Temel Özellikleri ve Kullanımı would improve the usefulness of such dictionaries would be a means of requesting the actual key object associated with a given key (so if the dictionary contained the string "WowZo" kakım a key, one could look up "wowzo" and get "WowZo"; unfortunately, the only C# IEqualityComparer Nasıl Kullanılır way to retrieve an actual key object, if TValue doesn't contain a redundant reference to it, is to enumerate the entire collection).

Typically I'd write MyCustomeComparer which implements IEqualityComparer and pass a MyCustomeComparer C# IEqualityComparer nedir object around to whichever objects that need it - I'm sure you're aware of this usage.

Doing that you changed the behavior for a single class, what if you need the same logic for other classes? If you need a "generic comparison". That is why you C# IEqualityComparer Temel Özellikleri ve Kullanımı have IEqualityComparer.