I have a condition in a silverlight application that compares 2 strings, for some reason when I use == it returns false while .Equals() returns true.
Here is the code:
if (((ListBoxItem)lstBaseMenu.SelectedItem).Content.Equals("Energy Attack"))
{
// Execute code
}
if (((ListBoxItem)lstBaseMenu.SelectedItem).Content == "Energy Attack")
{
// Execute code
}
Any reason as to why this is happening?
When == is used on an expression of type object, it'll resolve to System.Object.ReferenceEquals.
Equals is just a virtual method and behaves as such, so the overridden version will be used (which, for string type compares the contents).
object type (notice the monospace font) is technically meant to be "an expression of type System.Object". It does not have anything to do with the runtime type of the instance that is referred to by the expression. I think the statement "user-defined operators are treated like virtual methods" is extremely misleading. They are treated like overloaded methods and only depend on the compile-time type of the operands. In fact, after the set of candidate user-defined operators is computed, the rest of the binding procedure will be exactly the method overload resolution algorithm –
Aluin public static operator ==(object a, Foo b){...} or whatever, but overloading operators remains essentially very similar to overloading methods. –
Milligram virtual method resolution depend on the actual runtime type of an instance, whereas that is completely ignored in operator overload resolution, and that is indeed the whole point of my answer. –
Aluin string a = String.Copy("xyz"), b = String.Copy("xyz"); Console.WriteLine(String.ReferenceEquals(a,b)); Console.WriteLine(a==b); print false then true. Seems == is like Equals for string? –
Overthrow string type. Try: Console.WriteLine((object)a == (object)b) where a and b are strings and the result will be the same as ReferenceEquals. Similarly, if you had declared an overloaded == operator in your own type, you could mimic the same behavior of string. –
Aluin When comparing an object reference to a string (even if the object reference refers to a string), the special behavior of the == operator specific to the string class is ignored.
Normally (when not dealing with strings, that is), Equals compares values, while == compares object references.
If two objects you are comparing are referring to the same exact instance of an object, then both will return true, but if one has the same content and came from a different source (is a separate instance with the same data), only Equals will return true. However, as noted in the comments, string is a special case because it overrides the == operator so that when dealing purely with string references (and not object references), only the values are compared even if they are separate instances. The following code illustrates the subtle differences in behaviors:
string s1 = "test";
string s2 = "test";
string s3 = "test1".Substring(0, 4);
object s4 = s3; // Notice: set to object variable!
Console.WriteLine($"{object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s2)} {s1 == s2} {s1.Equals(s2)}");
Console.WriteLine($"{object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s3)} {s1 == s3} {s1.Equals(s3)}");
Console.WriteLine($"{object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s4)} {s1 == s4} {s1.Equals(s4)}");
The output is:
True True True // s1, s2
False True True // s1, s3
False False True // s1, s4
Summary:
| Variables | .ReferenceEquals | == | .Equals |
|---|---|---|---|
| s1, s2 | True | True | True |
| s1, s3 | False | True | True |
| s1, s4 | False | False | True |
== and .Equals are both dependent upon the behavior defined in the actual type and the actual type at the call site. Both are just methods / operators which can be overridden on any type and given any behavior the author so desires. In my experience, I find it's common for people to implement .Equals on an object but neglect to implement operator ==. This means that .Equals will actually measure the equality of the values while == will measure whether or not they are the same reference.
When I'm working with a new type whose definition is in flux or writing generic algorithms, I find the best practice is the following
Object.ReferenceEquals directly (not needed in the generic case)EqualityComparer<T>.DefaultIn some cases when I feel the usage of == is ambiguous I will explicitly use Object.Reference equals in the code to remove the ambiguity.
Eric Lippert recently did a blog post on the subject of why there are 2 methods of equality in the CLR. It's worth the read
== Operator
.Equals
== operator can be overloaded for any type, not just string. Describing a special-case exception only for string misrepresents the operator's semantics. It would be more accurate, though perhaps not terribly useful, to say "if operands are reference types it returns true if the operands refer to the same object, unless there is an applicable overload, in which case the implementation of that overload determines the result". The same is true for Equals with the added complication that it is a virtual method, so its behavior can be overridden as well as overloaded. –
Kenner As far as I understand it the answer is simple:
== compares object references..Equals compares object content.String datatypes always act like content comparison. I hope I'm correct and that it answered your question.
Firstly, there is a difference. For numbers
> 2 == 2.0
True
> 2.Equals(2.0)
False
And for strings
> string x = null;
> x == null
True
> x.Equals(null)
NullReferenceException
In both cases, == behaves more usefully than .Equals
== operator to be a good thing. For example, should 16777216.0f equal (int)16777217, (double)16777217.0, both, or neither? Comparisons among integral types are fine, but floating-point comparisons should only be performed IMHO with values that are explicitly cast to matching types. The comparison of a float to something other than a float, or a double to something other than a double, strikes me as a major code smell that should not compile without diagnostics. –
Potvaliant x == y does not imply x/3 == y/3 (try x = 5 and y = 5.0). –
Kimmel / for integer division to be a defect in the design of C# and Java. Pascal's div and even VB.NET's ` are much better. The problems with ==` are worse, though: x==y and y==z does not imply that x==z (consider the three numbers in my previous comment). As for the relation you suggest, even if x and y are both float or both double, x.equals((Object)y) does not imply that 1.0f/x == 1.0f/y` (if I had my druthers, it would guarantee that; even if == doesn't distinguish positive and zero, Equals should). –
Potvaliant I would add that if you cast your object to a string then it will work correctly. This is why the compiler will give you a warning saying:
Possible unintended reference comparison; to get a value comparison, cast the left hand side to type 'string'
object expr = XXX; if (expr == "Energy") { ... }, then since the left-hand side is of compile-time type object, the compiler has to use the overload operator ==(object, object). It checks for reference equality. Whether that will give true or false can be hard to predict because of string interning. If you know the left-hand side is either null or of type string, cast the left-hand side to string before using ==. –
Tend Because the static version of the .Equal method was not mentioned so far, I would like to add this here to summarize and to compare the 3 variations.
MyString.Equals("Somestring")) //Method 1
MyString == "Somestring" //Method 2
String.Equals("Somestring", MyString); //Method 3 (static String.Equals method) - better
where MyString is a variable that comes from somewhere else in the code.
Background info and to summerize:
In Java using == to compare strings should not be used. I mention this in case you need to use both languages and also
to let you know that using == can also be replaced with something better in C#.
In C# there's no practical difference for comparing strings using Method 1 or Method 2 as long as both are of type string. However, if one is null, one is of another type (like an integer), or one represents an object that has a different reference, then, as the initial question shows, you may experience that comparing the content for equality may not return what you expect.
Suggested solution:
Because using == is not exactly the same as using .Equals when comparing things, you can use the static String.Equals method instead. This way, if the two sides are not the same type you will still compare the content and if one is null, you will avoid the exception.
bool areEqual = String.Equals("Somestring", MyString);
It is a little more to write, but in my opinion, safer to use.
Here is some info copied from Microsoft:
public static bool Equals (string a, string b);
Parameters
a String
The first string to compare, or null.
b String
The second string to compare, or null.
Returns Boolean
true if the value of a is the same as the value of b; otherwise, false. If both a and b are null, the method returns true.
Just as an addition to the already good answers: This behaviour is NOT limited to Strings or comparing different numbertypes. Even if both elements are of type object of the same underlying type. "==" won't work.
The following screenshot shows the results of comparing two object {int} - values
I am a bit confused here. If the runtime type of Content is of type string, then both == and Equals should return true. However, since this does not appear to be the case, then runtime type of Content is not string and calling Equals on it is doing a referential equality and this explains why Equals("Energy Attack") fails. However, in the second case, the decision as to which overloaded == static operator should be called is made at compile time and this decision appears to be ==(string,string). this suggests to me that Content provides an implicit conversion to string.
Adding one more point to the answer.
.EqualsTo() method gives you provision to compare against culture and case sensitive.
There is another dimension to an earlier answer by @BlueMonkMN. The additional dimension is that the answer to the @Drahcir's title question as it is stated also depends on how we arrived at the string value. To illustrate:
string s1 = "test";
string s2 = "test";
string s3 = "test1".Substring(0, 4);
object s4 = s3;
string s5 = "te" + "st";
object s6 = s5;
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1} {2}", object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s2), s1 == s2, s1.Equals(s2));
Console.WriteLine("\n Case1 - A method changes the value:");
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1} {2}", object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s3), s1 == s3, s1.Equals(s3));
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1} {2}", object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s4), s1 == s4, s1.Equals(s4));
Console.WriteLine("\n Case2 - Having only literals allows to arrive at a literal:");
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1} {2}", object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s5), s1 == s5, s1.Equals(s5));
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1} {2}", object.ReferenceEquals(s1, s6), s1 == s6, s1.Equals(s6));
The output is:
True True True
Case1 - A method changes the value:
False True True
False False True
Case2 - Having only literals allows to arrive at a literal:
True True True
True True True
This is due to value equality (equal method) and referential equality(== operator), as the equal method checks the values while the same == is checked the reference.
== operator overriding code available inside the string class on https://referencesource.microsoft.com/
so now it's easier to understand, the equal method also has 2 implementations one from the string class itself and one from the object class. its impact on performance as well I also run some basic code and try to understand the benchmarks.
I am sharing the results below Please correct or advise if I am wrong somewhere. there are 3 cases and I have run the same code for all the cases and this is the result.
case 1: here I am using string. equal method for comparing 2 strings and both the string have the same values. string.equals(a,b)
1st run:5608195 ticks
2nd run:5529387 ticks
3rd run:5622569 ticks
total ticks: 16760151
case 2: here I am using string. equal() method(overloaded one) for comparing 2 strings and both the string have the same values. a.equals(b)
1st run: 6738583 ticks
2nd run: 6452927 ticks
3rd run: 7168897 ticks
total ticks=20360407
case 3: here I am using the == operator for comparing 2 strings and both the string have the same values. a==b
1st run: 6652151 ticks
2nd run: 7514300 ticks
3rd run: 7634606 ticks
total ticks=21801057
class Program
{
private static int count;
static string a = "abcdef";
static string b = "abcdef";
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int j = 1; j <= 3; j++)
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
{
checkString();
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.ElapsedTicks);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void checkString()
{
for (int i = 1; i <= 100000; i++)
{
if (a==b)
count++;
}
}
}
Really great answers and examples!
I would just like to add the fundamental difference between the two,
Operators such as
==are not polymorphic, whileEqualsis
With that concept in mind, if you work out any example (by looking at left hand and right hand reference type, and checking/knowing if the type actually has == operator overloaded and Equals being overriden) you are certain to get the right answer.
The == token in C# is used for two different equality-check operators. When the compiler encounters that token, it will check whether either of the types being compared has implemented an equality-operator overload for either the specific combination types being compared(*), or for a combination of types to which both types can be converted. If the compiler finds such an overload it will use it. Otherwise, if the two types are both reference types and they are not unrelated classes (either may be an interface, or they may be related classes), the compiler will regard == as a reference-comparison operator. If neither condition applies, compilation will fail.
Note that some other languages use separate tokens for the two equality-check operators. In VB.NET, for example, the = token is used within expressions solely for the overloadable equality-check operator, and Is is used as a reference-test or null-test operator. An to use = on a type which does not override the equality-check operator will fail, as will attempting to use Is for any purpose other than testing reference equality or nullity.
(*)Types generally only overload equality for comparison with themselves, but it may be useful for types to overload the equality operator for comparison with other particular types; for example, int could have (and IMHO should have but didn't) defined an equality operators for comparison with float, so that 16777217 would not report itself equal to 16777216f. As it is, since no such operator is defined, C# will promote the int to float, rounding it to 16777216f before the equality-check operator sees it; that operator then sees two equal floating-point numbers and reports them as equal, unaware of the rounding that took place.
3 as being equal to 3.0f. If we require the programmer to say what is intended in every case, then there is no danger of default behavior leading to unintended results, since there is no default behavior. –
Kenner Note that there are two different types of equality in C#
1- Value Equality (For value types like int, DateTime and struct)
2- Reference Equality (For objects)
There are two basic standard protocols for implement equality checks.
1- The == and != operators.
2- The virtual Equals method.
The == and != are statically resolve, which means C# will make a compile-time decision as to which type will perform the comparison.
For instance the value-type
int x = 50;
int y = 50;
Console.WriteLine (x == y); // True
but for reference type
object x = 50;
object y = 50;
Console.WriteLine (x == y); // False
The Equals() originally resoled at runtime according to operand actual type.
For instance, in the following example, at runtime, it will be decided that the Equals() will apply on int values, the result is true.
object x = 5;
object y = 5;
Console.WriteLine (x.Equals (y)); // True
However, for a reference type, it will use a reference equality check.
MyObject x = new MyObject();
MyObject y = x;
Console.WriteLine (x.Equals (y)); // True
Note that Equals() uses structural comparison for struct, which means it calls Equals on each field of a struct.
Whether Equals() and == are the same depends on the implementation. Because C# allows users to set different behaviors for Equals() and == respectively.
class CompareTest
{
public readonly int val;
public CompareTest(int val)
{
this.val = val;
}
public override bool Equals(object obj)
{
return obj is CompareTest test && this.val == test.val;
}
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return val;
}
public static bool operator == (CompareTest a, object b)
{
return Equals(a, b);
}
public static bool operator != (CompareTest a, object b)
{
return !(a == b);
}
}
In this example, I made Equals() and == have the same behavior. But what if I make them different? For example:
public static bool operator == (CompareTest a, object b)
{
return false;
}
Equals() works normally but == will never works.
Furthermore, although I made them have the same behavior, but there is still one difference: which == function will be called depends on the left value:
Compare Test a = new CompareTest(1);
object b = new CompareTest(1);
CompareTest c = new CompareTest(1);
Debug.Log("AB " + (a == b)); // true
Debug.Log("BA " + (b == a)); // false! because it calls object's == function
Debug.Log("AC " + (a == c)); // true
Debug.Log("CA " + (c == a)); // true
When we create any object there are two parts to the object one is the content and the other is reference to that content.
== compares both content and reference;
equals() compares only content
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/584128/What-is-the-difference-between-equalsequals-and-Eq
a and b are both string references, then the result of a == b does not depend on whether the references point to the same object. –
Kenner ==
The == operator can be used to compare two variables of any kind, and it simply compares the bits.
int a = 3;
byte b = 3;
if (a == b) { // true }
Note : there are more zeroes on the left side of the int but we don't care about that here.
int a (00000011) == byte b (00000011)
Remember == operator cares only about the pattern of the bits in the variable.
Use == If two references (primitives) refers to the same object on the heap.
Rules are same whether the variable is a reference or primitive.
Foo a = new Foo();
Foo b = new Foo();
Foo c = a;
if (a == b) { // false }
if (a == c) { // true }
if (b == c) { // false }
a == c is true a == b is false
the bit pattern are the same for a and c, so they are equal using ==.
Equal():
Use the equals() method to see if two different objects are equal.
Such as two different String objects that both represent the characters in "Jane"
object a = 3; object b = 3; Console.WriteLine(a == b);. The output is false, even though the bit patterns of the values are the same. The types of the operands also matter. The reason we "don't care" about the different number of zeros in your example is that by the time we call the equals operator, the number of zeros is actually the same, because of implicit conversion. –
Kenner The only difference between Equal and == is on object type comparison. in other cases, such as reference types and value types, they are almost the same(either both are bit-wise equality or both are reference equality).
object: Equals: bit-wise equality ==: reference equality
string: (equals and == are the same for string, but if one of string changed to object, then comparison result will be different) Equals: bit-wise equality == : bit-wise equality
See here for more explanation.
© 2022 - 2024 — McMap. All rights reserved.
==, but operators are not polymorphic. In this code, the==operator is invoked on typeobject, which does an identity comparison instead of a value one. – Slurry==overload based on the compile-time type of the operands. TheContentproperty isobject. Operators are not virtual, so the default implementation of==is called, giving a reference equality comparison. With Equals, the call goes to the virtual methodobject.Equals(object);stringoverrides this method and performs an ordinal comparison on the string content. See msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/fkfd9eh8(v=vs.110).aspx and referencesource.microsoft.com/#mscorlib/system/string.cs,507. – Kenner==has compile-time typeobjectand the right-hand side has compile-time typestring, then the C# compiler must pick the (problematic, in this case) overloadoperator ==(object, object); but it will issue a compile-time warning that it could be unintended. So read the compile-time warnings! To fix the issue and still use==, cast the left-hand side tostring. If I remember correctly, the warning text suggests just that. – Tend