This repository has been archived by the owner on Nov 22, 2023. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 148
Fix Equal() and GetHashCode() #332
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
@@ -40,22 +40,6 @@ public override StackItem ConvertTo(StackItemType type) | |||||||
} | ||||||||
} | ||||||||
|
||||||||
public override bool Equals(object obj) | ||||||||
{ | ||||||||
return this == obj; | ||||||||
} | ||||||||
|
||||||||
public override int GetHashCode() | ||||||||
{ | ||||||||
unchecked | ||||||||
{ | ||||||||
int hash = 17; | ||||||||
foreach (byte element in InnerBuffer) | ||||||||
hash = hash * 31 + element; | ||||||||
return hash; | ||||||||
} | ||||||||
} | ||||||||
|
||||||||
public override bool ToBoolean() | ||||||||
{ | ||||||||
return true; | ||||||||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Suggested change
same logic as applied for There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. We are temporarily unable to reach a consensus on this issue, and the function here has not been modified, it is still the same as the original. So I will merge this PR first. If there is a problem, you can create a new issue separately. @ixje |
||||||||
|
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of deleting should we do reference + sequence equality checking (=the same as
ByteString
)? Now it is only reference equality checked viaStackItem
.I can imagine a use-case where you dynamically build 2
Buffers
, then compare if they're equal (e.g. for some validation scheme). In order to do that you would have to convert them toByteStrings
first or the results will be false.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shargon What do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We are temporarily unable to reach a consensus on this issue, and the function here has not been modified, it is still the same as the original. So I will merge this PR first. If there is a problem, you can create a new issue separately. @ixje
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is @shargon afk or did he share his opinion elsewhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry i miss this conversation.
If it's the same reference, the sequence will be the same, but reference it's good for me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@shargon The point I'm trying to make is that the immutable version (
ByteString
) does reference + sequence checking, but the mutable versionBuffer
does not. Which I think should be the same, and you previousThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It could be easier, incompatible with c# but easy for developers. Use
==
and check if the buffer it's the same. But also... do you want to be able to compare ByteString with Buffer?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
as described above I can imagine a case where you'd like to compare 2
Buffers
on sequence without having to convert them toByteString
first. It doesn't sound logical to me that that sequence comparison only works in the immutable variant.