I am trying to compare two arrays with eachother. I tried this code and got the following errors
static bool ArraysEqual(Array a1, Array a2)
{
if (a1 == a2)
return true;
if (a1 == null || a2 == null)
return false;
if (a1.Length != a2.Length)
return false;
IList list1 = a1, list2 = a2; //error CS0305: Using the generic type 'System.Collections.Generic.IList<T>' requires '1' type arguments
for (int i = 0; i < a1.Length; i++)
{
if (!Object.Equals(list1[i], list2[i])) //error CS0021: Cannot apply indexing with [] to an expression of type 'IList'(x2)
return false;
}
return true;
}
Why do i get that error? i went for a low tech solution and did this which works fine but i need to copy/paste it several times for each type.
static bool ArraysEqual(byte[] a1, byte[] a2)
{
if (a1 == a2)
return true;
if (a1 == null || a2 == null)
return false;
if (a1.Length != a2.Length)
return false;
for (int i = 0; i < a1.Length; i++)
{
if (a1[i] != a2[i])
return false;
}
return true;
}
From stackoverflow
-
I think IList has to be specified like this:
IList<string> list1 = a1, list2 = a2; -
"Why do i get that error?" - probably, you don't have "
using System.Collections;" at the top of the file - only "using System.Collections.Generic;" - however, generics are probably safer - see below:static bool ArraysEqual<T>(T[] a1, T[] a2) { if (ReferenceEquals(a1,a2)) return true; if (a1 == null || a2 == null) return false; if (a1.Length != a2.Length) return false; EqualityComparer<T> comparer = EqualityComparer<T>.Default; for (int i = 0; i < a1.Length; i++) { if (!comparer.Equals(a1[i], a2[i])) return false; } return true; }acidzombie24 : Thank you for the 2nd time today Marc :D -
Providing that you have LINQ available and don't care too much about performance, the easiest thing is the following:
var arraysAreEqual = Enumerable.SequenceEquals(a1, a2);Joel Mueller : Or just a1.SequenceEquals(a2). What leads you to believe this would perform any worse than the accepted answer?Joel Mueller : I suppose the enumerable version can't rely on comparing lengths, so the accepted answer would be faster in cases where the arrays being compared were of different lengths.Noldorin : @Joel: That's essentially the reason. The SequenceEquals method uses enumerators, which means instantiating an iterator and then making numerous function calls to loop through it, all adding overhead. Normally I wouldn't think twice about using this method - it was just a small caveat.
0 comments:
Post a Comment