Does == check for full equality in Booleans? – Java It depends on whether you’re talking about Booleans (the object wrapper, note the capital B) or booleans (the primitive, note the lower case b). If you’re talking about Booleans (the object wrapper), as with all objects, == checks for identity, not equivalence. If you’re talking … Read more
An example from msdn public struct Complex { double re, im; public override bool Equals(Object obj) { return obj is Complex c && this == c; } public override int GetHashCode() { return re.GetHashCode() ^ im.GetHashCode(); } public static bool operator ==(Complex x, Complex y) { return x.re == y.re && x.im == y.im; } … Read more
It’s hard to answer this sort of question precisely without spending an awful lot of time picking your words carefully. I’ve done so in a couple of articles which you may find useful: Parameter passing in C# / .NET Reference types and value types in C# / .NET That’s not to say that the articles … Read more
There is no difference between those two statements, and the optimiser will transform the IN to the = when IN has just one element in it. Though when you have a question like this, just run both statements, run their execution plan and see the differences. Here – you won’t find any. After a big … Read more
This is just operator precedence. Your first (1,) == 1, groups like so: ((1,) == 1), so builds a tuple with a single element from the result of comparing the one-element tuple 1, to the integer 1 for equality They’re not equal, so you get the 1-tuple False, for a result.
The JVM is caching Integer values. Hence the comparison with == only works for numbers between -128 and 127. Refer: #Immutable_Objects_.2F_Wrapper_Class_Caching
As others have said, it will only work when T is constrained to be a reference type. Without any constraints, you can compare with null, but only null – and that comparison will always be false for non-nullable value types. Instead of calling Equals, it’s better to use an IComparer<T> – and if you have … Read more