IStructuralEquatable 和 IStructuralComparable 解决什么问题?
我注意到 .NET 4 中添加了这两个接口以及几个相关的类。它们对我来说似乎有点多余;我读过几篇关于它们的博客,但我仍然不明白它们解决了哪些在 .NET 4 之前很棘手的问题。
IStructuralEquatable
和 IStructuralComparable
有什么用?
I've noticed these two interfaces, and several associated classes, have been added in .NET 4. They seem a bit superfluous to me; I've read several blogs about them, but I still can't figure out what problem they solve that was tricky before .NET 4.
What use are IStructuralEquatable
and IStructuralComparable
?
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(6)
.NET 中的所有类型都支持
Object.Equals()
方法,该方法默认比较两个类型的引用相等性。然而,有时,也希望能够比较两种类型的结构相等。最好的例子是数组,它现在在 .NET 4 中实现了 IStructuralEquatable 接口。这样就可以区分比较两个数组是为了引用相等,还是为了“结构相等”——它们是否具有相同数量的项目,并且在每个位置具有相同的值。这是一个示例:
实现结构相等/可比较的其他类型包括元组和匿名类型 - 两者都明显受益于基于其结构和内容执行比较的能力。
你没有问的一个问题是:
我要提供的答案是,一般来说,最好区分参考比较和结构比较。通常情况下,如果您实现
IEquatable.Equals
,您也将重写Object.Equals
以保持一致。在这种情况下,您将如何支持引用平等和结构平等?All types in .NET support the
Object.Equals()
method which, by default, compares two types for reference equality. However, sometimes, it also desirable to be able to compare two types for structural equality.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:Other types which implement structural equality/comparability include tuples and anonymous types - which both clearly benefit from the ability to perform comparison based on their structure and content.
A question you didn't ask is:
The answer I would offer is that, in general, it's desirable to differentiate between reference comparisons and structural comparisons. It's normally expected that if you implement
IEquatable<T>.Equals
you will also overrideObject.Equals
to be consistent. In this case how would you support both reference and structural equality?我也有同样的问题。当我运行 LBushkin 的示例时,我惊讶地发现我得到了不同的答案!尽管这个答案有 8 票赞成,但它是错误的。经过多次“反思”,以下是我对事情的看法。
某些容器(数组、元组、匿名类型)支持
IStructuralComparable
和IStructuralEquatable
。IStructuralComparable
支持深度默认排序。IStructuralEquatable
支持深度默认哈希。{请注意,
EqualityComparer
支持浅层(仅 1 个容器级别)、默认哈希。}据我所知,这仅通过 StructuralComparisons 类公开。我能想到的使其有用的唯一方法是创建一个
StructuralEqualityComparer
辅助类,如下所示:现在我们可以创建一个 HashSet,其中的项目在容器内的容器内有容器。
通过实现这些接口,我们还可以使我们自己的容器与其他容器良好地配合。
现在我们可以创建一个
HashSet
,其中的项目在容器内的自定义容器内包含容器。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 has 8 upvotes, it is wrong. After a lot of 'reflector'ing, here is my take on things.
Certain containers (arrays, tuples, anonymous types) support
IStructuralComparable
andIStructuralEquatable
.IStructuralComparable
supports deep, default sorting.IStructuralEquatable
supports deep, default hashing.{Note that
EqualityComparer<T>
supports shallow (only 1 container level), default hashing.}As far as I see this is only exposed through the StructuralComparisons class. The only way I can figure out to make this useful is to make a
StructuralEqualityComparer<T>
helper class as follow:Now we can make a HashSet with items having containers within containers within containers.
We can also make our own container play well with these other containers by implementing these interfaces.
Now we can make a
HashSet
with items having containers within custom containers within containers.IStructuralEquatable
接口 说(在“备注”部分):该接口驻留在 System.Collections 命名空间中这一事实也清楚地表明了这一点。
The description of the
IStructuralEquatable
Interface says (in the "Remarks" section):This is also made clear by the fact that this interface resides in the
System.Collections
namespace.这是另一个示例,说明了这两个接口的可能用法:
Here is another example that illustrates a possible usage of the two interfaces:
C# 简而言之一本书:
C# in a nutshell book:
F# 从 .net 4 开始使用它们。 ( .net 2 在这里)
这些接口对于 F# 至关重要
F# started using them since .net 4. ( .net 2 is here)
These interfaces are crucial to F#