Forum: IronRuby object equality

Bb45e44f9e0c0b50551429d3feb214d1?d=identicon&s=25 Davy Brion (Guest)
on 2010-09-09 10:33
(Received via mailing list)
If i have the following class in ruby:

class TestClass
  def initialize(value)
    @value = value
  end

  def ==(other)
    return false if other.nil?
    self.value == other.value
  end

  protected

  def value
    @value
  end
end

test1 = TestClass.new(5)
test2 = TestClass.new(5)
p test1 == test2
p test1 != test2

the output is:
true
false

if i do this in .NET:

dynamic test1 = ruby.TestClass.@new(5);
dynamic test2 = ruby.TestClass.@new(5);

var equals = test1 == test2;
var differs = test1 != test2;

both equals and differs are true

i'm going to create an issue about this, but i do need to get this
working... is there a temporary workaround that i can use for now?
65030f148a97a8c19de608917f505d02?d=identicon&s=25 Will Green (hotgazpacho)
on 2010-09-09 12:21
(Received via mailing list)
Testing for object equality in C# is different than it is in Ruby. In
C#, you need to override both Object.Equals and Object.GetHashCode (I
forget which is used when, but I do recall that the compiler complains
if you override one and not the other). So, when you bring your Ruby
object into C# and compare them, C# doesn't see an override for Equals
on your object, and thus uses Object.Equals (which is often what you
don't want). Try defining an equals method on your Ruby object, or
alias it to ==.

I suspect that the == method on your Ruby object does not map to
Equals when you bring into C#. And I'm not sure that it should.

Thoughts?

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/
Bb45e44f9e0c0b50551429d3feb214d1?d=identicon&s=25 Davy Brion (Guest)
on 2010-09-09 12:53
(Received via mailing list)
the problem isn't with checking wether 2 objects are equal (though you
indeed need to define an Equals method on your ruby object if you want
the
comparison to work with a direct call to .Equals... doing == in C#
definitely uses the == method of your ruby object) but it is with the !=
check.  In ruby, using != calls == and inverts the result of that.
Doing !=
in C# on a ruby object doesn't seem to do the same thing.

I'm also not entirely sure how it _should_ be... but as far as i can
tell,
right now, i can't get equality checks working properly with ruby
objects.

if a == b is true, then a != b should always be false
if a.Equals(b) is true, then !a.Equals(b) should always be false

if there's another way to get this behavior working in C# for ruby
objects,
i'd love to hear about it since it's pretty important for something i'm
trying to do :)
65030f148a97a8c19de608917f505d02?d=identicon&s=25 Will Green (hotgazpacho)
on 2010-09-09 13:10
(Received via mailing list)
Then it would appear that in C#, using the != operator on two instances
of
Ruby objects does not call the == method on the first Ruby object and
invert
the result.

Can you switch to using equals as a work-around?

Not sure of the semantics around == vs .Equals in C#, but I know there
is a
semantic difference between == and eql? in Ruby.

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Davy Brion <ralinx@davybrion.com> wrote:

the problem isn't with checking wether 2 objects are equal (though you
indeed need to define an Equals method on your ruby object if you want
the
comparison to work with a direct call to .Equals... doing == in C#
definitely uses the == method of your ruby object) but it is with the !=
check.  In ruby, using != calls == and inverts the result of that.
Doing !=
in C# on a ruby object doesn't seem to do the same thing.

I'm also not entirely sure how it _should_ be... but as far as i can
tell,
right now, i can't get equality checks working properly with ruby
objects.

if a == b is true, then a != b should always be false
if a.Equals(b) is true, then !a.Equals(b) should always be false

if there's another way to get this behavior working in C# for ruby
objects,
i'd love to hear about it since it's pretty important for something i'm
trying to do :)
Bb45e44f9e0c0b50551429d3feb214d1?d=identicon&s=25 Davy Brion (Guest)
on 2010-09-09 13:44
(Received via mailing list)
by default, == does a reference check in C#, unless you override it to
do a
value based check (which you typically implement in Equals)

in C#, if you want == and != to work properly you need to implement them
both.  In ruby, you obviously can't implement !=, but i had (naievely
perhaps) expected that IronRuby would preserve the Ruby behavior when
calling == on an object which implements it.  I _think_ that would be
the
best way to handle this, though there might be very valid reasons as to
why
this isn't the case at the moment.

defining an Equals method on the ruby class which delegates to == works,
but
it is somewhat weird since most people use the == and != operators to
check
for equality.

perhaps i'm better off getting rid of the == implementation and solely
providing an Equals implementation
Bb45e44f9e0c0b50551429d3feb214d1?d=identicon&s=25 Davy Brion (Guest)
on 2010-09-09 13:46
(Received via mailing list)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Davy Brion <ralinx@davybrion.com> wrote:

> defining an Equals method on the ruby class which delegates to == works,
> but it is somewhat weird since most people use the == and != operators to
> check for equality.
>
> perhaps i'm better off getting rid of the == implementation and solely
> providing an Equals implementation
>
>
though the downside of that is that the ruby class doesn't stick to
ruby's
idioms when it comes to equality checks, which hurts its usage from
other
ruby code :s
Cb51033949ffccd982ae32c9f890f25a?d=identicon&s=25 Tomas Matousek (Guest)
on 2010-09-10 07:10
(Received via mailing list)
If any of the operands of == or != are typed to dynamic C# emits a call
to dynamic site with the corresponding operation. If the left hand side
is a Ruby object then this dynamic operation is translated to a Ruby
method call “==” or “!=”, respectively.
The latest version of IronRuby (built from github sources) is compatible
with MRI 1.9.2 in the way “!=” method is implemented: BasicObject#!=
calls == and negates the result. You can also provide your own
implementation of != method if its behavior should be different. This
semantics is compatible with DLR dynamic operations and everything works
as expected:

dynamic equatable = Engine.Execute(@"
class RubyEquatable
    def initialize val
      @val = val
    end

    def ==(other)
      @val == other
    end
end

RubyEquatable.new(100)
");

Assert((bool)( equatable == 100));
Assert(!(bool)( equatable == 101));
Assert(!(bool)( equatable != 100));
Assert((bool)( equatable != 100));

Tomas

From: ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Davy Brion
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] object equality


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:
by default, == does a reference check in C#, unless you override it to
do a value based check (which you typically implement in Equals)

in C#, if you want == and != to work properly you need to implement them
both.  In ruby, you obviously can't implement !=, but i had (naievely
perhaps) expected that IronRuby would preserve the Ruby behavior when
calling == on an object which implements it.  I _think_ that would be
the best way to handle this, though there might be very valid reasons as
to why this isn't the case at the moment.

defining an Equals method on the ruby class which delegates to == works,
but it is somewhat weird since most people use the == and != operators
to check for equality.

perhaps i'm better off getting rid of the == implementation and solely
providing an Equals implementation


though the downside of that is that the ruby class doesn't stick to
ruby's idioms when it comes to equality checks, which hurts its usage
from other ruby code :s


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:10 PM, William Green
<will@hotgazpacho.org<mailto:will@hotgazpacho.org>> wrote:
Then it would appear that in C#, using the != operator on two instances
of Ruby objects does not call the == method on the first Ruby object and
invert the result.

Can you switch to using equals as a work-around?

Not sure of the semantics around == vs .Equals in C#, but I know there
is a semantic difference between == and eql? in Ruby.

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:
the problem isn't with checking wether 2 objects are equal (though you
indeed need to define an Equals method on your ruby object if you want
the comparison to work with a direct call to .Equals... doing == in C#
definitely uses the == method of your ruby object) but it is with the !=
check.  In ruby, using != calls == and inverts the result of that.
Doing != in C# on a ruby object doesn't seem to do the same thing.

I'm also not entirely sure how it _should_ be... but as far as i can
tell, right now, i can't get equality checks working properly with ruby
objects.

if a == b is true, then a != b should always be false
if a.Equals(b) is true, then !a.Equals(b) should always be false

if there's another way to get this behavior working in C# for ruby
objects, i'd love to hear about it since it's pretty important for
something i'm trying to do :)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM, William Green
<will@hotgazpacho.org<mailto:will@hotgazpacho.org>> wrote:
Testing for object equality in C# is different than it is in Ruby. In
C#, you need to override both Object.Equals and Object.GetHashCode (I
forget which is used when, but I do recall that the compiler complains
if you override one and not the other). So, when you bring your Ruby
object into C# and compare them, C# doesn't see an override for Equals
on your object, and thus uses Object.Equals (which is often what you
don't want). Try defining an equals method on your Ruby object, or
alias it to ==.

I suspect that the == method on your Ruby object does not map to
Equals when you bring into C#. And I'm not sure that it should.

Thoughts?

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:

>   end
> p test1 == test2
>
> var equals = test1 == test2;
> var differs = test1 != test2;
>
> both equals and differs are true
>
> i'm going to create an issue about this, but i do need to get this working... is there a 
temporary workaround that i can use for now?
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Cb51033949ffccd982ae32c9f890f25a?d=identicon&s=25 Tomas Matousek (Guest)
on 2010-09-10 07:11
(Received via mailing list)
There is indeed a typo… the last line should read:
Assert((bool)( equatable != 101));

Tomas

From: Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 10:10 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: RE: [Ironruby-core] object equality

If any of the operands of == or != are typed to dynamic C# emits a call
to dynamic site with the corresponding operation. If the left hand side
is a Ruby object then this dynamic operation is translated to a Ruby
method call “==” or “!=”, respectively.
The latest version of IronRuby (built from github sources) is compatible
with MRI 1.9.2 in the way “!=” method is implemented: BasicObject#!=
calls == and negates the result. You can also provide your own
implementation of != method if its behavior should be different. This
semantics is compatible with DLR dynamic operations and everything works
as expected:

dynamic equatable = Engine.Execute(@"
class RubyEquatable
    def initialize val
      @val = val
    end

    def ==(other)
      @val == other
    end
end

RubyEquatable.new(100)
");

Assert((bool)( equatable == 100));
Assert(!(bool)( equatable == 101));
Assert(!(bool)( equatable != 100));
Assert((bool)( equatable != 100));

Tomas

From: ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Davy Brion
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] object equality


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:
by default, == does a reference check in C#, unless you override it to
do a value based check (which you typically implement in Equals)

in C#, if you want == and != to work properly you need to implement them
both.  In ruby, you obviously can't implement !=, but i had (naievely
perhaps) expected that IronRuby would preserve the Ruby behavior when
calling == on an object which implements it.  I _think_ that would be
the best way to handle this, though there might be very valid reasons as
to why this isn't the case at the moment.

defining an Equals method on the ruby class which delegates to == works,
but it is somewhat weird since most people use the == and != operators
to check for equality.

perhaps i'm better off getting rid of the == implementation and solely
providing an Equals implementation


though the downside of that is that the ruby class doesn't stick to
ruby's idioms when it comes to equality checks, which hurts its usage
from other ruby code :s


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:10 PM, William Green
<will@hotgazpacho.org<mailto:will@hotgazpacho.org>> wrote:
Then it would appear that in C#, using the != operator on two instances
of Ruby objects does not call the == method on the first Ruby object and
invert the result.

Can you switch to using equals as a work-around?

Not sure of the semantics around == vs .Equals in C#, but I know there
is a semantic difference between == and eql? in Ruby.

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:
the problem isn't with checking wether 2 objects are equal (though you
indeed need to define an Equals method on your ruby object if you want
the comparison to work with a direct call to .Equals... doing == in C#
definitely uses the == method of your ruby object) but it is with the !=
check.  In ruby, using != calls == and inverts the result of that.
Doing != in C# on a ruby object doesn't seem to do the same thing.

I'm also not entirely sure how it _should_ be... but as far as i can
tell, right now, i can't get equality checks working properly with ruby
objects.

if a == b is true, then a != b should always be false
if a.Equals(b) is true, then !a.Equals(b) should always be false

if there's another way to get this behavior working in C# for ruby
objects, i'd love to hear about it since it's pretty important for
something i'm trying to do :)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM, William Green
<will@hotgazpacho.org<mailto:will@hotgazpacho.org>> wrote:
Testing for object equality in C# is different than it is in Ruby. In
C#, you need to override both Object.Equals and Object.GetHashCode (I
forget which is used when, but I do recall that the compiler complains
if you override one and not the other). So, when you bring your Ruby
object into C# and compare them, C# doesn't see an override for Equals
on your object, and thus uses Object.Equals (which is often what you
don't want). Try defining an equals method on your Ruby object, or
alias it to ==.

I suspect that the == method on your Ruby object does not map to
Equals when you bring into C#. And I'm not sure that it should.

Thoughts?

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:

>   end
> p test1 == test2
>
> var equals = test1 == test2;
> var differs = test1 != test2;
>
> both equals and differs are true
>
> i'm going to create an issue about this, but i do need to get this working... is there a 
temporary workaround that i can use for now?
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Bb45e44f9e0c0b50551429d3feb214d1?d=identicon&s=25 Davy Brion (Guest)
on 2010-09-10 09:49
(Received via mailing list)
great to hear, and already looking forward to the next release :)

just wondering though, you mentioned that it's possible to provide your
own
implementation of !=.  how would one do that? if i try to define a !=
method, i get an 'unexpected !=' error

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Tomas Matousek <
Cb51033949ffccd982ae32c9f890f25a?d=identicon&s=25 Tomas Matousek (Guest)
on 2010-09-10 18:43
(Received via mailing list)
You need MRI 1.9.* or IronRuby built from github sources.
Then this just works

def !=(other)
end

Tomas

From: ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Davy Brion
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] object equality

great to hear, and already looking forward to the next release :)

just wondering though, you mentioned that it's possible to provide your
own implementation of !=.  how would one do that? if i try to define a
!= method, i get an 'unexpected !=' error
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Tomas Matousek
<Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com<mailto:Tomas.Matousek@microsoft.com>>
wrote:
If any of the operands of == or != are typed to dynamic C# emits a call
to dynamic site with the corresponding operation. If the left hand side
is a Ruby object then this dynamic operation is translated to a Ruby
method call “==” or “!=”, respectively.
The latest version of IronRuby (built from github sources) is compatible
with MRI 1.9.2 in the way “!=” method is implemented: BasicObject#!=
calls == and negates the result. You can also provide your own
implementation of != method if its behavior should be different. This
semantics is compatible with DLR dynamic operations and everything works
as expected:

dynamic equatable = Engine.Execute(@"
class RubyEquatable
    def initialize val
      @val = val
    end

    def ==(other)
      @val == other
    end
end

RubyEquatable.new(100)
");

Assert((bool)( equatable == 100));
Assert(!(bool)( equatable == 101));
Assert(!(bool)( equatable != 100));
Assert((bool)( equatable != 100));

Tomas

From:
ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org>
[mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core-bounces@rubyforge.org>]
On Behalf Of Davy Brion
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 4:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] object equality


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:
by default, == does a reference check in C#, unless you override it to
do a value based check (which you typically implement in Equals)

in C#, if you want == and != to work properly you need to implement them
both.  In ruby, you obviously can't implement !=, but i had (naievely
perhaps) expected that IronRuby would preserve the Ruby behavior when
calling == on an object which implements it.  I _think_ that would be
the best way to handle this, though there might be very valid reasons as
to why this isn't the case at the moment.

defining an Equals method on the ruby class which delegates to == works,
but it is somewhat weird since most people use the == and != operators
to check for equality.

perhaps i'm better off getting rid of the == implementation and solely
providing an Equals implementation


though the downside of that is that the ruby class doesn't stick to
ruby's idioms when it comes to equality checks, which hurts its usage
from other ruby code :s


On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 1:10 PM, William Green
<will@hotgazpacho.org<mailto:will@hotgazpacho.org>> wrote:
Then it would appear that in C#, using the != operator on two instances
of Ruby objects does not call the == method on the first Ruby object and
invert the result.

Can you switch to using equals as a work-around?

Not sure of the semantics around == vs .Equals in C#, but I know there
is a semantic difference between == and eql? in Ruby.

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:52 AM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:
the problem isn't with checking wether 2 objects are equal (though you
indeed need to define an Equals method on your ruby object if you want
the comparison to work with a direct call to .Equals... doing == in C#
definitely uses the == method of your ruby object) but it is with the !=
check.  In ruby, using != calls == and inverts the result of that.
Doing != in C# on a ruby object doesn't seem to do the same thing.

I'm also not entirely sure how it _should_ be... but as far as i can
tell, right now, i can't get equality checks working properly with ruby
objects.

if a == b is true, then a != b should always be false
if a.Equals(b) is true, then !a.Equals(b) should always be false

if there's another way to get this behavior working in C# for ruby
objects, i'd love to hear about it since it's pretty important for
something i'm trying to do :)
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:20 PM, William Green
<will@hotgazpacho.org<mailto:will@hotgazpacho.org>> wrote:
Testing for object equality in C# is different than it is in Ruby. In
C#, you need to override both Object.Equals and Object.GetHashCode (I
forget which is used when, but I do recall that the compiler complains
if you override one and not the other). So, when you bring your Ruby
object into C# and compare them, C# doesn't see an override for Equals
on your object, and thus uses Object.Equals (which is often what you
don't want). Try defining an equals method on your Ruby object, or
alias it to ==.

I suspect that the == method on your Ruby object does not map to
Equals when you bring into C#. And I'm not sure that it should.

Thoughts?

--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.org/



On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Davy Brion
<ralinx@davybrion.com<mailto:ralinx@davybrion.com>> wrote:

>   end
> p test1 == test2
>
> var equals = test1 == test2;
> var differs = test1 != test2;
>
> both equals and differs are true
>
> i'm going to create an issue about this, but i do need to get this working... is there a 
temporary workaround that i can use for now?
> _______________________________________________
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core

_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core



_______________________________________________
Ironruby-core mailing list
Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org<mailto:Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org>
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.