Develop Reference

C# object{int} not equal to object{int} [duplicate]

Today I stumbled upon an interesting bug I wrote. I have a set of properties which can be set through a general setter. These properties can be value types or reference types.
public void SetValue( TEnum property, object value )
{
if ( _properties[ property ] != value )
{
// Only come here when the new value is different.
}
}
When writing a unit test for this method I found out the condition is always true for value types. It didn't take me long to figure out this is due to boxing/unboxing. It didn't take me long either to adjust the code to the following:
public void SetValue( TEnum property, object value )
{
if ( !_properties[ property ].Equals( value ) )
{
// Only come here when the new value is different.
}
}
The thing is I'm not entirely satisfied with this solution. I'd like to keep a simple reference comparison, unless the value is boxed.
The current solution I am thinking of is only calling Equals() for boxed values. Doing a check for a boxed values seems a bit overkill. Isn't there an easier way?

If you need different behaviour when you're dealing with a value-type then you're obviously going to need to perform some kind of test. You don't need an explicit check for boxed value-types, since all value-types will be boxed** due to the parameter being typed as object.
This code should meet your stated criteria: If value is a (boxed) value-type then call the polymorphic Equals method, otherwise use == to test for reference equality.
public void SetValue(TEnum property, object value)
{
bool equal = ((value != null) && value.GetType().IsValueType)
? value.Equals(_properties[property])
: (value == _properties[property]);
if (!equal)
{
// Only come here when the new value is different.
}
}
( ** And, yes, I know that Nullable<T> is a value-type with its own special rules relating to boxing and unboxing, but that's pretty much irrelevant here.)

Equals() is generally the preferred approach.
The default implementation of .Equals() does a simple reference comparison for reference types, so in most cases that's what you'll be getting. Equals() might have been overridden to provide some other behavior, but if someone has overridden .Equals() in a class it's because they want to change the equality semantics for that type, and it's better to let that happen if you don't have a compelling reason not to. Bypassing it by using == can lead to confusion when your class sees two things as different when every other class agrees that they're the same.

Since the input parameter's type is object, you will always get a boxed value inside the method's context.
I think your only chance is to change the method's signature and to write different overloads.

How about this:
if(object.ReferenceEquals(first, second)) { return; }
if(first.Equals(second)) { return; }
// they must differ, right?
Update
I realized this doesn't work as expected for a certain case:
For value types, ReferenceEquals returns false so we fall back to Equals, which behaves as expected.
For reference types where ReferenceEquals returns true, we consider them "same" as expected.
For reference types where ReferenceEquals returns false and Equals returns false, we consider them "different" as expected.
For reference types where ReferenceEquals returns false and Equals returns true, we consider them "same" even though we want "different"
So the lesson is "don't get clever"

I suppose
I'd like to keep a simple reference comparison, unless the value is boxed.
is somewhat equivalent to
If the value is boxed, I'll do a non-"simple reference comparison".
This means the first thing you'll need to do is to check whether the value is boxed or not.
If there exists a method to check whether an object is a boxed value type or not, it should be at least as complex as that "overkill" method you provided the link to unless that is not the simplest way. Nonetheless, there should be a "simplest way" to determine if an object is a boxed value type or not. It's unlikely that this "simplest way" is simpler than simply using the object Equals() method, but I've bookmarked this question to find out just in case.
(not sure if I was logical)

Why are you expected to override GetHashCode and Equals when overloading the equality operator?

Failing to override GetHashCode and Equals when overloading the equality operator causes the compiler to produce warnings. Why would it be a good idea to change the implementation of either? After reading Eric Lippert's blog post on GetHashCode it's seems like there probably aren't many useful alternatives to GetHashCode's base implementation, why does the compiler I encourage you to change it?

Let's suppose you are implementing a class.
If you are overloading == then you are producing a type that has value equality as opposed to reference equality.
Given that, now the question is "how desirable is it to have a class that implements reference equality in .Equals() and value equality in ==?" and the answer is "not very desirable". That seems like a potential source of confusion. (And in fact, the company that I now work for, Coverity, produces a defect discovery tool that checks to see if you are confusing value equality with reference equality for precisely this reason. Coincidentally I was just reading the spec for it when I saw your question!)
Moreover, if you are going to have a class that implements both value and reference equality, the usual way to do it is to override Equals and leave == alone, not the other way around.
Therefore, given that you have overloaded ==, it is strongly suggested that you also override Equals.
If you are overriding Equals to produce value equality then you are required to override GetHashCode to match, as you know if you've read my article that you linked to.

If you don't override Equals() when you override == you will have some amazingly bad code.
How would you feel about this happening?
if (x == y)
{
if (!x.Equals(y))
throw new InvalidOperationException("Wut?");
}
Here's an example. Given this class:
class Test
{
public int Value;
public string Name;
public static bool operator==(Test lhs, Test rhs)
{
if (ReferenceEquals(lhs, rhs))
return true;
if (ReferenceEquals(lhs, null) || ReferenceEquals(rhs, null))
return false;
return lhs.Value == rhs.Value;
}
public static bool operator!=(Test lhs, Test rhs)
{
return !(lhs == rhs);
}
}
This code will behave oddly:
Test test1 = new Test { Value = 1, Name = "1" };
Test test2 = new Test { Value = 1, Name = "2" };
if (test1 == test2)
Console.WriteLine("test1 == test2"); // This gets printed.
else
Console.WriteLine("test1 != test2");
if (test1.Equals(test2))
Console.WriteLine("test1.Equals(test2)");
else
Console.WriteLine("NOT test1.Equals(test2)"); // This gets printed!
You do NOT want this!

My guess is that the compiler takes its clues from your actions, and decides that since you find it important to provide an alternative implementation of the equality operator, then you probably want the object equality to remain consistent with your new implementation of ==. After all, you do not want the two equality comparisons to mean drastically different things, otherwise your program would be hard to understand even on a very basic level. Therefore, the compiler thinks that you should redefine Equals as well.
Once you provide an alternative implementation Equals, however, you need to modify GetHashCode to stay consistent with the equality implementation. Hence the compiler warns you that your implementation might be incomplete, and suggests overriding both Equals and GetHashCode.

If you don't overload the Equals method too, then using it might give different results from the ones you'd get with the operator. Like, if you overload = for integers...
int i = 1;
(1 == 1) == (i.Equals(1))
Could evaluate to false.
For the same reason, you should reimplement the GetHashCode method so you don't mess up with hashtables and such other structures that rely on hash comparisons.
Notice I'm saying "might" and "could", not "will". The warnings are there just as a reminder that unexpected things might happen if you don't follow its suggestions. Otherwise you'd get errors instead of warnings.

The documentation is pretty clear about this:
The GetHashCode method can be overridden by a derived type. Value
types must override this method to provide a hash function that is
appropriate for that type and to provide a useful distribution in a
hash table. For uniqueness, the hash code must be based on the value
of an instance field or property instead of a static field or
property.
Objects used as a key in a Hashtable object must also override the
GetHashCode method because those objects must generate their own hash
code. If an object used as a key does not provide a useful
implementation of GetHashCode, you can specify a hash code provider
when the Hashtable object is constructed. Prior to the .NET Framework
version 2.0, the hash code provider was based on the
System.Collections.IHashCodeProvider interface. Starting with version
2.0, the hash code provider is based on the System.Collections.IEqualityComparer interface.

ReferenceEquals(variable, null) is the same as variable == null?

Basically the title. I see a lot of the former in the code I'm working on and I was wondering why they didn't use the latter. Are there any differences between the two?
Thanks.

Straight from the documentation
Unlike the Equals method and the equality operator, the ReferenceEquals method cannot be overridden. Because of this, if you want to test two object references for equality and are unsure about the implementation of the Equals method, you can call the ReferenceEquals method. However, note that if objA and objB are value types, they are boxed before they are passed to the ReferenceEquals method.

Not really. One can overload operator ==, so you basically can get it return e.g. false always. The recommended usage for this operator is to signify value equality, so (for correcftly implemented operator) basically check against null may return true if the object is semantically null.
See this article for more details and some historical overview.
Another difference is that for value types ReferenceEquals doesn't make much sense: for example, any two "instances" of int 0 have to be considered the same in any sane circumstances. (For purists: I put quotes because, strictly speaking, we cannot talk about instances of a value type.)

The main benefit of ReferenceEquals() is that the intention is much clearer, you are trying to determine if two references are equal, not if the contents of the objects referred to are equal.
It does this by checking for operator == equality between the two references cast to object (since the params are both object), which eliminates any subclass operator == overloads that might confuse the issue (like string's).
So essentially, this:
if (ReferenceEquals(x, y))
Is the same as this:
if (((object)x) == ((object)y))
Though the former is easier to read.
There are definitely times where it comes in handy, especially avoiding infinite recursion when you are overloading operator == yourself:
public class Foo
{
public static bool operator ==(Foo first, Foo second)
{
// can't say if (first == second) here or infinite recursion...
if (ReferenceEquals(first, second))
{
// if same object, obviously same...
return true;
}
// etc.
}
}

Overriding the == operator in non-immutable types

The MSDN Guidelines for Overloading Equals() and Operator == state:
By default, the operator == tests for
reference equality by determining if
two references indicate the same
object, so reference types do not need
to implement operator == in order to
gain this functionality. When a type
is immutable, meaning the data
contained in the instance cannot be
changed, overloading operator == to
compare value equality instead of
reference equality can be useful
because, as immutable objects, they
can be considered the same as long as
they have the same value. Overriding
operator == in non-immutable types is
not recommended.
Can anyone explain the reasoning behind the bold?
EDIT - Also, is this guideline relevant to the == operator only, or is it meant for the Equals method as well ?

My educated guess would be to make things operate like the built in types in .NET do, namely that == should work like reference equality where possible, and that Equals should work like value equality where possible. Consider the actual difference between == and Equals:
object myObj = new Integer(4);
object myObj2 = new Integer(4);
//Note that == is only called if the ref'd objects are cast as a type
//overloading it.
myObj == myObj2; //False (???)
myObj.Equals(myObj2); //True (This call is virtual)
//Set the references equal to each other -- note that the operator==
//comparison now works.
myObj2 = myObj;
myObj == myObj2; //True
myObj.Equals(myObj2); //True
This behavior is of course inconsistent and confusing, particularly to new programmers -- but it demonstrates the difference between reference comparisons and value comparisons.
If you follow this MSDN guideline, you are following the guideline taken by important classes such as string. Basically -- if a comparison using == succeeds, the programmer knows that that comparison will always succeed, so long as the references involved don't get assigned to new objects. The programmer need never worry about the contents of the objects being different, because they never will be different:
//Mutable type
var mutable1 = new Mutable(1);
var mutable2 = mutable1;
mutable1 == mutable2; //true
mutable1.MutateToSomethingElse(56);
mutable1 == mutable2; //still true, even after modification
//This is consistent with the framework. (Because the references are the same,
//reference and value equality are the same.) Consider if == were overloaded,
//and there was a difference between reference and value equality:
var mutable1 = new Mutable(1);
var mutable2 = new Mutable(1);
mutable1 == mutable2; //true
mutable1.MutateToSomethingElse(56);
mutable1 == mutable2; //oops -- not true anymore
//This is inconsistent with, say, "string", because it cannot mutate.
It boils down to that there's no real technical reason for the guideline -- it's just to remain consistent with the rest of the classes in the framework.

Assume you have a mutable type A and you create a set or objects of type A. Adding an object to the set should fail if this object already exists in the set.
Now let's say you add an object to the set, and then you change its properties so that it becomes equal to another object in the set. You've created an illegal state, where there are two objects in the set which are equal.

When can a == b be false and a.Equals(b) true?

I ran into this situation today. I have an object which I'm testing for equality; the Create() method returns a subclass implementation of MyObject.
MyObject a = MyObject.Create();
MyObject b = MyObject.Create();
a == b; // is false
a.Equals(b); // is true
Note I have also over-ridden Equals() in the subclass implementation, which does a very basic check to see whether or not the passed-in object is null and is of the subclass's type. If both those conditions are met, the objects are deemed to be equal.
The other slightly odd thing is that my unit test suite does some tests similar to
Assert.AreEqual(MyObject.Create(), MyObject.Create()); // Green bar
and the expected result is observed. Therefore I guess that NUnit uses a.Equals(b) under the covers, rather than a == b as I had assumed.
Side note: I program in a mixture of .NET and Java, so I might be mixing up my expectations/assumptions here. I thought, however, that a == b worked more consistently in .NET than it did in Java where you often have to use equals() to test equality.
UPDATE Here's the implementation of Equals(), as requested:
public override bool Equals(object obj) {
return obj != null && obj is MyObjectSubclass;
}

The key difference between == and Equals is that == (like all operators) is not polymorphic, while Equals (like any virtual function) is.
By default, reference types will get identical results for == and Equals, because they both compare references. It's also certainly possible to code your operator logic and Equals logic entirely differently, though that seems nonsensical to do. The biggest gotcha comes when using the == (or any) operator at a higher level than the desired logic is declared (in other words, referencing the object as a parent class that either doesn't explicitly define the operator or defines it differently than the true class). In such cases the logic for the class that it's referenced as is used for operators, but the logic for Equals comes from whatever class the object actually is.
I want to state emphatically that, based solely upon the information in your question, there is absolutely no reason to think or assume that Equals compares values versus references. It's trivially easy to create such a class, but this is not a language specification.
Post-question-edit edit
Your implementation of Equals will return true for any non-null instance of your class. Though the syntax makes me think that you aren't, you may be confusing the is C# keyword (which confirms type) with the is keyword in VB.NET (which confirms referential equality). If that is indeed the case, then you can make an explicit reference comparison in C# by using Object.ReferenceEquals(this, obj).
In any case, this is why you are seeing true for Equals, since you're passing in a non-null instance of your class.
Incidentally, your comment about NUnit using Equals is true for the same reason; because operators are not polymorphic, there would be no way for a particular class to define custom equality behavior if the Assert function used ==.

a == b checks if they reference the same object.
a.Equals(b) compares the contents.
This is a link to a Jon Skeet article from 2004 that explains it better.

You pretty much answered your question yourself:
I have also over-ridden Equals() in the subclass implementation, which does a very basic check to see whether or not the passed-in object is null and is of the subclass's type. If both those conditions are met, the objects are deemed to be equal.
The == operator hasn't been overloaded - so it's returning false since a and b are different objects. But a.Equals is calling your override, which is presumably returning true because neither a nor b are null, and they're both of the subclass' type.
So your question was "When can a == b be false and a.Equals(b) true?" Your answer in this case is: when you explicitly code it to be so!

In Java a ==b check if the references of the two objects are equals (rougly, if the two objects are the same object "aliased")
a.equals(b) compare the values represented by the two objects.

They both do the same unless they are specifically overloaded within the object to do something else.
A quote from the Jon Skeet Article mentioned elsewhere.
The Equals method is just a virtual
one defined in System.Object, and
overridden by whichever classes choose
to do so. The == operator is an
operator which can be overloaded by
classes, but which usually has
identity behaviour.
The keyword here is USUALLY. They can be written to do whatever the underlying class wishes and in no way do they have to do the same.

The "==" operate tests absolute equality (unless overloaded); that is, it tests whether two objects are the same object. That's only true if you assigned one to the other, ie.
MyObject a = MyObject.Create();
MyObject b = a;
Just setting all the properties of two objects equal doesn't mean the objects themselves are. Under the hood, what the "==" operator is comparing is the addresses of the objects in memory. A practical effect of this is that if two objects are truly equal, changing a property on one of them will also change it on the other, whereas if they're only similar ("Equals" equal), it won't. This is perfectly consistent once you understand the principle.

I believe that a == b will check if the referenced object is the same.
Usually to see if the value is the same a.Equals(b) is used (this often needs to be overridden in order to work).