char charTime[] = “TIME”; char buf[] = “SOMETHINGELSE”; C++ and C (remove std:: for C): bool equal = (std::strcmp(charTime, buf) == 0); But the true C++ way: std::string charTime = “TIME”, buf = “SOMETHINGELSE”; bool equal = (charTime == buf); Using == does not work because it tries to compare the addresses of the first … Read more
In Python, the == operator is implemented in terms of the magic method __eq__, which by default implements it by identity comparison. You can, however, override the method in order to provide your own concept of object equality. Note, that if you do so, you will usually also override at least __ne__ (which implements the … Read more
Python is not C. Unlike C, Python supports equality testing between arbitrary types. There is no ‘how’ here, strings don’t support equality testing to integers, integers don’t support equality testing to strings. So Python falls back to the default identity test behaviour, but the objects are not the same object, so the result is False. … Read more
As you suspect, you’re returning the match of the first property seen. You should return false if that property doesn’t match, but keep looking otherwise. Also, return false if there’s no prop property found on y (that is, the counts match, but not the actual properties). If all properties have matched, return true: var deepEqual … Read more
They are fundamentally different. == compares by calling the __eq__ method is returns true if and only if the two references are to the same object So in comparision with say Java: is is the same as == for objects == is the same as equals for objects
Scala 2.7 tried to add functionality to Java [] arrays, and ran into corner cases that were problematic. Scala 2.8 has declared that Array[T] is T[], but it provides wrappers and equivalents. Try the following in 2.8 (edit/note: as of RC3, GenericArray is ArraySeq–thanks to retronym for pointing this out): import scala.collection.mutable.{GenericArray=>GArray, WrappedArray=>WArray} scala> GArray(0,1,2) … Read more
KennyTM is correct, there is no other simpler or more efficient way. However, if you have many variables, you could also build an array of the values and use the IEnumerable.All method to verify they’re all 1. More readable, IMO. if (new[] { v1, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v7, v8, v9, v10 }.All(x => … Read more
Yes, the default implementation is Object’s (generally speaking; if you inherit from a class that redefined equals and/or hashCode, then you’ll use that implementation instead). From the documentation: equals The equals method for class Object implements the most discriminating possible equivalence relation on objects; that is, for any non-null reference values x and y, this … Read more
You can simply check whether the multisets with the elements of x and y are equal: import collections collections.Counter(x) == collections.Counter(y) This requires the elements to be hashable; runtime will be in O(n), where n is the size of the lists. If the elements are also unique, you can also convert to sets (same asymptotic … Read more
You can have a look at the type ExpressionEqualityComparer that is used inside Linq to db4o. It implements the interface IEqualityComparer<T>, so it’s usable for generic collections, as well as for a standalone usage. It uses the type ExpressionComparison to compare two Expressions for equality, and HashCodeCalculation, to compute a hashcode from an Expression. It … Read more