.NET strings are always immutable, but how can one make an equivalent System.String class that the string values can be mutated?
For example: When a is changed, I want b also be changed.
var a = "Hello";
var b = a;
a = "World";
var shouldBeTrue = String.ReferenceEquals(a, b)
&& String.Equals(b, "World");
Strings are inmutable, wich was a very important design Decisions. It helps using them in Multitasking contexts and allows a bunch of other Optimizations like String Interning.
Usualy the inmutabiltiy is not a problem. Unless you are doing loads of string operations, what little dead strings accumulate can be dealt with by the GC whenver it coems around to running.
For the remaining cases, there is the StringBuilder class. Whose purpsoe is to get around inmutability and stuff like internening. On a more extreme level you might make your own Char list or array. Just do not forget to provide a custom ToString(). But for at least 95% of all cases the String and StringBuilder classes are enough.
Edit:
After reading a Comment to your Originbal post, I too noticed that mutabiltiy does not seem to be what you are actually looking for. Rather then you seem to look for is normal reference mechanics. While this thematic is somewhat related to inmutability, it is actually a distinct property. ref should work. As would be just making a class with a single string field and handing the instances of that class around.
As #Christopher noted, most likely what you really want is not string mutability, but rather a reference mechanic by which multiple such references are kept synchronized. The simplest such mechanism would be a wrapper class, like in the example below:
class Wrapper
{
public string Value { get; set; }
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Wrapper a = new Wrapper();
a.Value = "Hello";
Wrapper b = a;
a.Value = "World";
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(ReferenceEquals(a, b));
System.Diagnostics.Debug.Assert(a.Value == b.Value);
}
var a = "Hello";
var b = a;
var chars = new char[] { 'W','o','r','l','d' };
unsafe
{
fixed (char* pTempChars = &a.GetPinnableReference())
{
char* ptr = pTempChars;
for (int i = 0; i < chars.Length; i++)
{
(*ptr) = chars[i];
ptr++;
}
}
}
var shouldBeTrue = String.ReferenceEquals(a, b) && String.Equals(b, "World");
//shouldBeTrue is true
But it can be dangerous. You must be sure that no one other than b and a refers to them. And it only works if the length of the string is the same.
Update(More readable but less flexible):
var a = "Hello";
var b = a;
ChangeString(ref a, "World");
var shouldBeTrue = String.ReferenceEquals(a, b) && String.Equals(b, "World");
//shouldBeTrue is true
___________________
var a = "Hello";
var b = a;
ChangeString(ref a, "Wor");
//b == "Worlo"
private bool ChangeString(ref string original, in string newValue)
{
if(original.Length < newValue.Length)
{
return false;
}
unsafe
{
fixed (char* pDest = original, pSource = newValue)
{
Buffer.MemoryCopy(
pSource,
pDest,
original.Length * sizeof(char),
newValue.Length * sizeof(char)
);
}
}
return true;
}
System.Text.StringBuilder Class is a mutable string. You can use the indexer to change the char in pos (one char only), and use the Insert, Replace, Append, and AppendLine to make changes to the StringBuilder itself in the fastest way possible. These methods return an instance to the same string builder object, so, you don't actually need to assign the return value.
If I have these strings:
"abc" = false
"123" = true
"ab2" = false
Is there a command, like IsNumeric() or something else, that can identify if a string is a valid number?
int n;
bool isNumeric = int.TryParse("123", out n);
Update As of C# 7:
var isNumeric = int.TryParse("123", out int n);
or if you don't need the number you can discard the out parameter
var isNumeric = int.TryParse("123", out _);
The var s can be replaced by their respective types!
This will return true if input is all numbers. Don't know if it's any better than TryParse, but it will work.
Regex.IsMatch(input, #"^\d+$")
If you just want to know if it has one or more numbers mixed in with characters, leave off the ^ + and $.
Regex.IsMatch(input, #"\d")
Edit:
Actually I think it is better than TryParse because a very long string could potentially overflow TryParse.
You can also use:
using System.Linq;
stringTest.All(char.IsDigit);
It will return true for all Numeric Digits (not float) and false if input string is any sort of alphanumeric.
Test case
Return value
Test result
"1234"
true
✅Pass
"1"
true
✅Pass
"0"
true
✅Pass
""
true
⚠️Fail (known edge case)
"12.34"
false
✅Pass
"+1234"
false
✅Pass
"-13"
false
✅Pass
"3E14"
false
✅Pass
"0x10"
false
✅Pass
Please note: stringTest should not be an empty string as this would pass the test of being numeric.
I've used this function several times:
public static bool IsNumeric(object Expression)
{
double retNum;
bool isNum = Double.TryParse(Convert.ToString(Expression), System.Globalization.NumberStyles.Any, System.Globalization.NumberFormatInfo.InvariantInfo, out retNum);
return isNum;
}
But you can also use;
bool b1 = Microsoft.VisualBasic.Information.IsNumeric("1"); //true
bool b2 = Microsoft.VisualBasic.Information.IsNumeric("1aa"); // false
From Benchmarking IsNumeric Options
(source: aspalliance.com)
(source: aspalliance.com)
This is probably the best option in C#.
If you want to know if the string contains a whole number (integer):
string someString;
// ...
int myInt;
bool isNumerical = int.TryParse(someString, out myInt);
The TryParse method will try to convert the string to a number (integer) and if it succeeds it will return true and place the corresponding number in myInt. If it can't, it returns false.
Solutions using the int.Parse(someString) alternative shown in other responses works, but it is much slower because throwing exceptions is very expensive. TryParse(...) was added to the C# language in version 2, and until then you didn't have a choice. Now you do: you should therefore avoid the Parse() alternative.
If you want to accept decimal numbers, the decimal class also has a .TryParse(...) method. Replace int with decimal in the above discussion, and the same principles apply.
You can always use the built in TryParse methods for many datatypes to see if the string in question will pass.
Example.
decimal myDec;
var Result = decimal.TryParse("123", out myDec);
Result would then = True
decimal myDec;
var Result = decimal.TryParse("abc", out myDec);
Result would then = False
In case you don't want to use int.Parse or double.Parse, you can roll your own with something like this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static bool IsNumeric(this string s)
{
foreach (char c in s)
{
if (!char.IsDigit(c) && c != '.')
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
If you want to catch a broader spectrum of numbers, à la PHP's is_numeric, you can use the following:
// From PHP documentation for is_numeric
// (http://php.net/manual/en/function.is-numeric.php)
// Finds whether the given variable is numeric.
// Numeric strings consist of optional sign, any number of digits, optional decimal part and optional
// exponential part. Thus +0123.45e6 is a valid numeric value.
// Hexadecimal (e.g. 0xf4c3b00c), Binary (e.g. 0b10100111001), Octal (e.g. 0777) notation is allowed too but
// only without sign, decimal and exponential part.
static readonly Regex _isNumericRegex =
new Regex( "^(" +
/*Hex*/ #"0x[0-9a-f]+" + "|" +
/*Bin*/ #"0b[01]+" + "|" +
/*Oct*/ #"0[0-7]*" + "|" +
/*Dec*/ #"((?!0)|[-+]|(?=0+\.))(\d*\.)?\d+(e\d+)?" +
")$" );
static bool IsNumeric( string value )
{
return _isNumericRegex.IsMatch( value );
}
Unit Test:
static void IsNumericTest()
{
string[] l_unitTests = new string[] {
"123", /* TRUE */
"abc", /* FALSE */
"12.3", /* TRUE */
"+12.3", /* TRUE */
"-12.3", /* TRUE */
"1.23e2", /* TRUE */
"-1e23", /* TRUE */
"1.2ef", /* FALSE */
"0x0", /* TRUE */
"0xfff", /* TRUE */
"0xf1f", /* TRUE */
"0xf1g", /* FALSE */
"0123", /* TRUE */
"0999", /* FALSE (not octal) */
"+0999", /* TRUE (forced decimal) */
"0b0101", /* TRUE */
"0b0102" /* FALSE */
};
foreach ( string l_unitTest in l_unitTests )
Console.WriteLine( l_unitTest + " => " + IsNumeric( l_unitTest ).ToString() );
Console.ReadKey( true );
}
Keep in mind that just because a value is numeric doesn't mean it can be converted to a numeric type. For example, "999999999999999999999999999999.9999999999" is a perfeclty valid numeric value, but it won't fit into a .NET numeric type (not one defined in the standard library, that is).
I know this is an old thread, but none of the answers really did it for me - either inefficient, or not encapsulated for easy reuse. I also wanted to ensure it returned false if the string was empty or null. TryParse returns true in this case (an empty string does not cause an error when parsing as a number). So, here's my string extension method:
public static class Extensions
{
/// <summary>
/// Returns true if string is numeric and not empty or null or whitespace.
/// Determines if string is numeric by parsing as Double
/// </summary>
/// <param name="str"></param>
/// <param name="style">Optional style - defaults to NumberStyles.Number (leading and trailing whitespace, leading and trailing sign, decimal point and thousands separator) </param>
/// <param name="culture">Optional CultureInfo - defaults to InvariantCulture</param>
/// <returns></returns>
public static bool IsNumeric(this string str, NumberStyles style = NumberStyles.Number,
CultureInfo culture = null)
{
double num;
if (culture == null) culture = CultureInfo.InvariantCulture;
return Double.TryParse(str, style, culture, out num) && !String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(str);
}
}
Simple to use:
var mystring = "1234.56789";
var test = mystring.IsNumeric();
Or, if you want to test other types of number, you can specify the 'style'.
So, to convert a number with an Exponent, you could use:
var mystring = "5.2453232E6";
var test = mystring.IsNumeric(style: NumberStyles.AllowExponent);
Or to test a potential Hex string, you could use:
var mystring = "0xF67AB2";
var test = mystring.IsNumeric(style: NumberStyles.HexNumber)
The optional 'culture' parameter can be used in much the same way.
It is limited by not being able to convert strings that are too big to be contained in a double, but that is a limited requirement and I think if you are working with numbers larger than this, then you'll probably need additional specialised number handling functions anyway.
UPDATE of Kunal Noel Answer
stringTest.All(char.IsDigit);
// This returns true if all characters of the string are digits.
But, for this case we have that empty strings will pass that test, so, you can:
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(stringTest) && stringTest.All(char.IsDigit)){
// Do your logic here
}
You can use TryParse to determine if the string can be parsed into an integer.
int i;
bool bNum = int.TryParse(str, out i);
The boolean will tell you if it worked or not.
If you want to know if a string is a number, you could always try parsing it:
var numberString = "123";
int number;
int.TryParse(numberString , out number);
Note that TryParse returns a bool, which you can use to check if your parsing succeeded.
I guess this answer will just be lost in between all the other ones, but anyway, here goes.
I ended up on this question via Google because I wanted to check if a string was numeric so that I could just use double.Parse("123") instead of the TryParse() method.
Why? Because it's annoying to have to declare an out variable and check the result of TryParse() before you know if the parse failed or not. I want to use the ternary operator to check if the string is numerical and then just parse it in the first ternary expression or provide a default value in the second ternary expression.
Like this:
var doubleValue = IsNumeric(numberAsString) ? double.Parse(numberAsString) : 0;
It's just a lot cleaner than:
var doubleValue = 0;
if (double.TryParse(numberAsString, out doubleValue)) {
//whatever you want to do with doubleValue
}
I made a couple extension methods for these cases:
Extension method one
public static bool IsParseableAs<TInput>(this string value) {
var type = typeof(TInput);
var tryParseMethod = type.GetMethod("TryParse", BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public, Type.DefaultBinder,
new[] { typeof(string), type.MakeByRefType() }, null);
if (tryParseMethod == null) return false;
var arguments = new[] { value, Activator.CreateInstance(type) };
return (bool) tryParseMethod.Invoke(null, arguments);
}
Example:
"123".IsParseableAs<double>() ? double.Parse(sNumber) : 0;
Because IsParseableAs() tries to parse the string as the appropriate type instead of just checking if the string is "numeric" it should be pretty safe. And you can even use it for non numeric types that have a TryParse() method, like DateTime.
The method uses reflection and you end up calling the TryParse() method twice which, of course, isn't as efficient, but not everything has to be fully optimized, sometimes convenience is just more important.
This method can also be used to easily parse a list of numeric strings into a list of double or some other type with a default value without having to catch any exceptions:
var sNumbers = new[] {"10", "20", "30"};
var dValues = sNumbers.Select(s => s.IsParseableAs<double>() ? double.Parse(s) : 0);
Extension method two
public static TOutput ParseAs<TOutput>(this string value, TOutput defaultValue) {
var type = typeof(TOutput);
var tryParseMethod = type.GetMethod("TryParse", BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.Public, Type.DefaultBinder,
new[] { typeof(string), type.MakeByRefType() }, null);
if (tryParseMethod == null) return defaultValue;
var arguments = new object[] { value, null };
return ((bool) tryParseMethod.Invoke(null, arguments)) ? (TOutput) arguments[1] : defaultValue;
}
This extension method lets you parse a string as any type that has a TryParse() method and it also lets you specify a default value to return if the conversion fails.
This is better than using the ternary operator with the extension method above as it only does the conversion once. It still uses reflection though...
Examples:
"123".ParseAs<int>(10);
"abc".ParseAs<int>(25);
"123,78".ParseAs<double>(10);
"abc".ParseAs<double>(107.4);
"2014-10-28".ParseAs<DateTime>(DateTime.MinValue);
"monday".ParseAs<DateTime>(DateTime.MinValue);
Outputs:
123
25
123,78
107,4
28.10.2014 00:00:00
01.01.0001 00:00:00
If you want to check if a string is a number (I'm assuming it's a string since if it's a number, duh, you know it's one).
Without regex and
using Microsoft's code as much as possible
you could also do:
public static bool IsNumber(this string aNumber)
{
BigInteger temp_big_int;
var is_number = BigInteger.TryParse(aNumber, out temp_big_int);
return is_number;
}
This will take care of the usual nasties:
Minus (-) or Plus (+) in the beginning
contains decimal character BigIntegers won't parse numbers with decimal points. (So: BigInteger.Parse("3.3") will throw an exception, and TryParse for the same will return false)
no funny non-digits
covers cases where the number is bigger than the usual use of Double.TryParse
You'll have to add a reference to System.Numerics and have
using System.Numerics; on top of your class (well, the second is a bonus I guess :)
Double.TryParse
bool Double.TryParse(string s, out double result)
The best flexible solution with .net built-in function called- char.IsDigit. It works with unlimited long numbers. It will only return true if each character is a numeric number. I used it lot of times with no issues and much easily cleaner solution I ever found. I made a example method.Its ready to use. In addition I added validation for null and empty input. So the method is now totally bulletproof
public static bool IsNumeric(string strNumber)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(strNumber))
{
return false;
}
else
{
int numberOfChar = strNumber.Count();
if (numberOfChar > 0)
{
bool r = strNumber.All(char.IsDigit);
return r;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
Try the regex define below
new Regex(#"^\d{4}").IsMatch("6") // false
new Regex(#"^\d{4}").IsMatch("68ab") // false
new Regex(#"^\d{4}").IsMatch("1111abcdefg")
new Regex(#"^\d+").IsMatch("6") // true (any length but at least one digit)
With c# 7 it you can inline the out variable:
if(int.TryParse(str, out int v))
{
}
Use these extension methods to clearly distinguish between a check if the string is numerical and if the string only contains 0-9 digits
public static class ExtensionMethods
{
/// <summary>
/// Returns true if string could represent a valid number, including decimals and local culture symbols
/// </summary>
public static bool IsNumeric(this string s)
{
decimal d;
return decimal.TryParse(s, System.Globalization.NumberStyles.Any, System.Globalization.CultureInfo.CurrentCulture, out d);
}
/// <summary>
/// Returns true only if string is wholy comprised of numerical digits
/// </summary>
public static bool IsNumbersOnly(this string s)
{
if (s == null || s == string.Empty)
return false;
foreach (char c in s)
{
if (c < '0' || c > '9') // Avoid using .IsDigit or .IsNumeric as they will return true for other characters
return false;
}
return true;
}
}
public static bool IsNumeric(this string input)
{
int n;
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(input)) //.Replace('.',null).Replace(',',null)
{
foreach (var i in input)
{
if (!int.TryParse(i.ToString(), out n))
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
return false;
}
Regex rx = new Regex(#"^([1-9]\d*(\.)\d*|0?(\.)\d*[1-9]\d*|[1-9]\d*)$");
string text = "12.0";
var result = rx.IsMatch(text);
Console.WriteLine(result);
To check string is uint, ulong or contains only digits one .(dot) and digits
Sample inputs
123 => True
123.1 => True
0.123 => True
.123 => True
0.2 => True
3452.434.43=> False
2342f43.34 => False
svasad.324 => False
3215.afa => False
Hope this helps
string myString = "abc";
double num;
bool isNumber = double.TryParse(myString , out num);
if isNumber
{
//string is number
}
else
{
//string is not a number
}
Pull in a reference to Visual Basic in your project and use its Information.IsNumeric method such as shown below and be able to capture floats as well as integers unlike the answer above which only catches ints.
// Using Microsoft.VisualBasic;
var txt = "ABCDEFG";
if (Information.IsNumeric(txt))
Console.WriteLine ("Numeric");
IsNumeric("12.3"); // true
IsNumeric("1"); // true
IsNumeric("abc"); // false
All the Answers are Useful. But while searching for a solution where the Numeric value is 12 digits or more (in my case), then while debugging, I found the following solution useful :
double tempInt = 0;
bool result = double.TryParse("Your_12_Digit_Or_more_StringValue", out tempInt);
Th result variable will give you true or false.
Here is the C# method.
Int.TryParse Method (String, Int32)
bool is_number(string str, char delimiter = '.')
{
if(str.Length==0) //Empty
{
return false;
}
bool is_delimetered = false;
foreach (char c in str)
{
if ((c < '0' || c > '9') && (c != delimiter)) //ASCII table check. Not a digit && not delimeter
{
return false;
}
if (c == delimiter)
{
if (is_delimetered) //more than 1 delimiter
{
return false;
}
else //first time delimiter
{
is_delimetered = true;
}
}
}
return true;
}
I was trying out possibilities to check a string to be an palindrome with the following logic
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Anagram solver");
Console.WriteLine(IsPalindrome("HIMA", "AMHI").ToString());
Console.ReadKey();
}
static bool IsPalindrome(string s1, string s2)
{
return s1.OrderBy(c => c).SequenceEqual(s2.OrderBy(c => c));
}
}
My idea was to get character literals in a string, and compare with that of characters from another string to deduce for a possible palindrome. Is such a thing possible with LINQ SequenceEqual method ?
Looking from the sample above,
'H' shall be compared with 'A' (default equality comparison)
'I' shall be compared with 'M'
'M' shall be compared with 'H'
'A' shall be compared with 'I'
Can any one guide me here.
Thanks and Cheers
Srivatsa
If you want palindrome then you should not order them, just reverse and match -
static bool IsPalindrome(string s1, string s2)
{
return s1.SequenceEqual(s2.Reverse());
}
for case-insensitivity try -
static bool IsPalindrome(string s1, string s2)
{
return s1.ToLower().SequenceEqual(s2.ToLower().Reverse());
}
In your case, "HIMA" and "AMHI" are sorted by the OrderBy LINQ function, which results in two collections containing the characters "AHIM". If you call SequenceEqual this returns true.
For SequenceEqual to return true, both collections have to have the same amount of elements in exactly the same order. No elements are allowed to be duplicated or stored at another position.
If you want to determine if two words are anagrams, that is exactly the functionality you want.
For palindromes, you could use the following:
public bool CheckPalindrome(string first, string second)
{
if (first == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("first");
if (second == null) throw new ArgumentNullExcpetion("second");
return first.Reverse().SequenceEquals(second);
}
You could use this method:
public static bool IsPalindromWith(this string str1, string str2)
{
if(str1 == null || str2 == null) return false;
return str1.SequenceEqual(str2.Reverse());
}
Usage: bool isPalindrom = "HIMA".IsPalindromWith("AMIH");
However, it is a very simple approach which ignores many edge cases.
Here is a better version that takes at least the case into account:
public static bool IsPalindromWith(this string str1, string str2, StringComparison comparison = StringComparison.CurrentCultureIgnoreCase)
{
if(str1 == null || str2 == null) return false;
char[] str2Chars = str2.ToCharArray();
Array.Reverse(str2Chars);
return str1.Equals(new String(str2Chars), comparison);
}
To elaburate on the existing (and i my opinion corrent) answer by #feO2x
Try looking at it like this:
static bool IsAnagram(string s1, string s2)
{
var lst1 = s1.OrderBy(c => c); //will result in { 'A','H','I', 'M' }
var lst2 = s2.OrderBy(c => c); //will *also* result in { 'A','H','I', 'M' }
return lst1.SequenceEqual(lst2);
}
The OrderBy(...) destroys the original order which you are trying to test.
Simply removing them will solve your problem:
static bool IsAnagram(string s1, string s2)
{
var lst1 = s1.AsEnumerable();
var lst2 = s2.AsEnumerable();
return lst1.SequenceEqual(lst2);
}
I want to check if a string contains more than one character in the string?
If i have a string 12121.23.2 so i want to check if it contains more than one . in the string.
You can compare IndexOf to LastIndexOf to check if there is more than one specific character in a string without explicit counting:
var s = "12121.23.2";
var ch = '.';
if (s.IndexOf(ch) != s.LastIndexOf(ch)) {
...
}
You can easily count the number of occurences of a character with LINQ:
string foo = "12121.23.2";
foo.Count(c => c == '.');
If performance matters, write it yourself:
public static bool ContainsDuplicateCharacter(this string s, char c)
{
bool seenFirst = false;
for (int i = 0; i < s.Length; i++)
{
if (s[i] != c)
continue;
if (seenFirst)
return true;
seenFirst = true;
}
return false;
}
In this way, you only make one pass through the string's contents, and you bail out as early as possible. In the worst case you visit all characters only once. In #dasblinkenlight's answer, you would visit all characters twice, and in #mensi's answer, you have to count all instances, even though once you have two you can stop the calculation. Further, using the Count extension method involves using an Enumerable<char> which will run more slowly than directly accessing the characters at specific indices.
Then you may write:
string s = "12121.23.2";
Debug.Assert(s.ContainsDuplicateCharacter('.'));
Debug.Assert(s.ContainsDuplicateCharacter('1'));
Debug.Assert(s.ContainsDuplicateCharacter('2'));
Debug.Assert(!s.ContainsDuplicateCharacter('3'));
Debug.Assert(!s.ContainsDuplicateCharacter('Z'));
I also think it's nicer to have a function that explains exactly what you're trying to achieve. You could wrap any of the other answers in such a function too, however.
Boolean MoreThanOne(String str, Char c)
{
return str.Count(x => x==c) > 1;
}
Take the following:
var x = new Action(() => { Console.Write("") ; });
var y = new Action(() => { });
var a = x.GetHashCode();
var b = y.GetHashCode();
Console.WriteLine(a == b);
Console.WriteLine(x == y);
This will print:
True
False
Why is the hashcode the same?
It is kinda surprising, and will make using delegates in a Dictionary as slow as a List (aka O(n) for lookups).
Update:
The question is why. IOW who made such a (silly) decision?
A better hashcode implementation would have been:
return Method ^ Target == null ? 0 : Target.GetHashcode();
// where Method is IntPtr
Easy! Since here is the implementation of the GetHashCode (sitting on the base class Delegate):
public override int GetHashCode()
{
return base.GetType().GetHashCode();
}
(sitting on the base class MulticastDelegate which will call above):
public sealed override int GetHashCode()
{
if (this.IsUnmanagedFunctionPtr())
{
return ValueType.GetHashCodeOfPtr(base._methodPtr);
}
object[] objArray = this._invocationList as object[];
if (objArray == null)
{
return base.GetHashCode();
}
int num = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < ((int) this._invocationCount); i++)
{
num = (num * 0x21) + objArray[i].GetHashCode();
}
return num;
}
Using tools such as Reflector, we can see the code and it seems like the default implementation is as strange as we see above.
The type value here will be Action. Hence the result above is correct.
UPDATE
My first attempt of a better implementation:
public class DelegateEqualityComparer:IEqualityComparer<Delegate>
{
public bool Equals(Delegate del1,Delegate del2)
{
return (del1 != null) && del1.Equals(del2);
}
public int GetHashCode(Delegate obj)
{
if(obj==null)
return 0;
int result = obj.Method.GetHashCode() ^ obj.GetType().GetHashCode();
if(obj.Target != null)
result ^= RuntimeHelpers.GetHashCode(obj);
return result;
}
}
The quality of this should be good for single cast delegates, but not so much for multicast delegates (If I recall correctly Target/Method return the values of the last element delegate).
But I'm not really sure if it fulfills the contract in all corner cases.
Hmm it looks like quality requires referential equality of the targets.
This smells like some of the cases mentioned in this thread, maybe it will give you some pointers on this behaviour. else, you could log it there :-)
What's the strangest corner case you've seen in C# or .NET?
Rgds GJ
From MSDN :
The default implementation of
GetHashCode does not guarantee
uniqueness or consistency; therefore,
it must not be used as a unique object
identifier for hashing purposes.
Derived classes must override
GetHashCode with an implementation
that returns a unique hash code. For
best results, the hash code must be
based on the value of an instance
field or property, instead of a static
field or property.
So if you have not overwritten the GetHashCode method, it may return the same. I suspect this is because it generates it from the definition, not the instance.