Received: from nobody by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XhfDK-0004GG-7y for lojban-newreal@lojban.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:47:34 -0700 Received: from 69.repairmyhistorynow.com ([5.83.36.164]:60446) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XhfD8-0004E9-J9 for lojban@lojban.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:47:29 -0700 Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 06:46:58 -0700 Message-ID: <201410240629758425356746865010.ybJ3wjMYgH9aZb@69.repairmyhistorynow.com> From: Important.Update Reply-to: To: Subject: Your scores may have been updated as of Oct 24 2014 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: -

Score Alert Systems

You Have (1) New Notice:

We are contacting you because your score may have changed due to a recent update.

Go here to see how your score was affected by these updates:

View Score/Report Changes →

Regards,
The Reporting Center

This mail was sent to lojban@lojban.org. If you don't want to receive these emails from us in the future, there are two ways to alter your settings. unsub-here.
Or Write - Score-Alert Systems, Attention: 118 N. Jason Ln Wood Dale IL 60191

[The current score generation time: 21 Seconds]
-----------
McAfee Tested - Oct-24 - on 10-23-2014 20:43:56

The assumption is that the id uniquely identifies the 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63. This is certainly very common, but there are situations (e.g. Entity Framework) where the id may be initially set to 0 until an ID is later 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 (e.g. when the object is persisted). I'm not sure that Equals would be meaningful in that context, but if that is a 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 for the OP, it needs to be accounted for. Eric J. 2 days ago +1 for explaining the weird side 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 of mutating an object that is 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 in a dictionary or other place where hash code is used. Mike 2 days ago I don't like using IEquatable for non-sealed types. Even if one implements IEquatable, one would still need to override Equals(Object) for semantic 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63; unless IEquatable.Equals(T) chains to 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63(Object) [in which case the 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 would serve no purpose] it will be very hard for derived classes to define any new equality-related criteria. BTW, I also don't like overloading == on reference types. 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 2 days ago @supercat: 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 on sealing - that's why I made the class sealed as well. Unfortunately an edit at roughly the same time removed my sample code... For overloading ==, I'm on the fence - I'm very glad601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63it is overloaded for ==, for 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63, but it can certainly be overdone. Jon Skeet 2 days ago The Equals(object obj) method should be 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 Equals(obj as Element). That aside, I'm not sure I like this approach of Equals(Element other): the use of other != null uses the overloaded 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63, not the built-in reference inequality operator, and if you're going to use the 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 operator already, can you not 601c4926b9aa10669ca8413663654a63 use return this == other; there? hvd 2 days ago