I'm creating on the fly a method which performs a comparison of the two values by coercing them to the same type. Say you have:
object a = (int)1; object b = (byte)1; You'd get a.Equals(b) to be false, which is somewhat unexpected. What I'm doing is this: ((int)a).Equals((int)(byte)b), which returns true, as expected. There might be other ways, however. On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 03:40, webpaul <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you have a link to something that explains the general concept of > what is going on there? I haven't ever seen anything like that before. > > On Mar 3, 8:06 pm, Simone Busoli <[email protected]> wrote: > > committed in rev. 2086 > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 20:03, Simone Busoli <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Right :) I'm not sure I can take the time in the next few days, > though, > > > but it's on my todo list. > > > > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 20:01, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> Go for it :-)That would actually keep us consistent with the > appropriate > > >> C# behavior, which is the expected one. > > > > >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Simone Busoli < > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >>> What about LCG with expressions? They know how to compare each other, > > >>> when they know who they are :) > > > > >>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 19:52, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>> Custom Comparators for the join.We can detect them not being of the > > >>>> same type and coerce them to the bigger type > > > > >>>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:49 PM, webpaul <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>>> How are you thinking of doing it? Casting up should always be safe, > so > > >>>>> you could always cast any numeric type to double or something like > > >>>>> that in order to compare. That way you could compare 1 with 1.00 > also. > > >>>>> Not sure if that is a perf problem or not though. > > > > >>>>> On Feb 22, 11:33 am, Ayende Rahien <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > +1 > > > > >>>>> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Simone Busoli < > > >>>>> [email protected]>wrote: > > > > >>>>> > > Actually, when you're doing a join it would be a very cool > feature > > >>>>> to have. > > >>>>> > > I spent quite some time wondering why the rows didn't join > > >>>>> correctly, and it > > >>>>> > > was because the field on which it was performing the join was > an > > >>>>> integer on > > >>>>> > > one side and a byte on the other. So far, the solution has been > to > > >>>>> write > > >>>>> > > tests which ensure that the two sides of the join have the same > > >>>>> field types, > > >>>>> > > but I would like to solve it at the RhinoETL level. > > > > >>>>> > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 03:54, webpaul <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >>>>> > >> Ok, mission accomplished then - Makes sense once you think > about > > >>>>> it. I > > >>>>> > >> certainly don't have any burning need for it to work and the > easy > > >>>>> work > > >>>>> > >> around is to cast one of the items as they are read in if it > > >>>>> becomes > > >>>>> > >> an issue so I think it's fine. Just wanted to check if that > was a > > >>>>> > >> desired thing or not. > > > > >>>>> > >> On Feb 21, 10:43 am, Simone Busoli <[email protected]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > >> > That was to point out the subtlety in the .net fx. I already > > >>>>> discussed > > >>>>> > >> it, > > >>>>> > >> > please lookup "row equality" on the mailing list. I think > this > > >>>>> can be > > >>>>> > >> > addressed in several ways, but didn't take the time to do it > > >>>>> yet. > > > > >>>>> > >> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 17:13, webpaul <[email protected]> > > >>>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> > >> > > I looked at some recent changes and one of them was for > > >>>>> checking row > > >>>>> > >> > > equality. I noticed there was a specific test for an > (int)1 > > >>>>> not being > > >>>>> > >> > > equal to a (byte)1 - is that the desired behavior or was > the > > >>>>> test put > > >>>>> > >> > > in there just to demonstrate that subtlety? I did a little > > >>>>> test and > > >>>>> > >> > > was surprised to find the below .NET framework behavior, I > > >>>>> would have > > >>>>> > >> > > thought they would be equal: > > > > >>>>> > >> > > object a = (int)1; > > >>>>> > >> > > object b = (byte)1; > > > > >>>>> > >> > > Assert.IsFalse(a.Equals(b)); > > > > >>>>> > >> > > I'm guessing the framework just returns false if the types > are > > >>>>> > >> > > different in the Equals implementation. > > > > >>>>> > >> > > So I understand why the test behaves how it does, just > curious > > >>>>> if that > > >>>>> > >> > > is the desired effect or just due to the above and you > wanted > > >>>>> it to be > > >>>>> > >> > > clear.- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>> > >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > >>>>> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Rhino Tools Dev" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rhino-tools-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
