equality

Equality test on three or more objects

情到浓时终转凉″ 提交于 2019-12-06 07:33:42
If I have three or more objects like so: a = 4 b = 4 c = 4 d = 2 what would be a clean ruby-style way of determining whether they are all equal? Any bespoke methods for running equality tests on three or more elements? I suppose I could do something like this: arrays = [a,b,c,d].map{|x| [x]} arrays.first == arrays.reduce(:&) ? true : false which appears to work, but feels sort of ham handed, and might be difficult for other developers to read. kipar [a,b,c,d].any?{|x| x != a} or array.any?{|x| x != array.first} Alternatively, the #all? method may read more intuitively for some: array.all? {|x|

Defining different equality types as inductive types in Coq

与世无争的帅哥 提交于 2019-12-06 05:50:24
问题 I am trying to define in Coq different types of equalities. During an university course my professor gave us the rules of four different types, as follows (I provide just the links to the rules): Gentzen : https://ibb.co/imQOCF Leibniz : https://ibb.co/n0uBzv Martin-Lof : https://ibb.co/fALZKv Path Induction : https://ibb.co/esZuKv The difference among these four types relies on the type C. I am trying to prove the isomorphism among them. Unfortunately I have some troubles in declaring as

LINQ: Use .Except() on collections of different types by making them convertible/comparable?

て烟熏妆下的殇ゞ 提交于 2019-12-06 02:09:26
问题 Given two lists of different types, is it possible to make those types convertible between or comparable to each other (eg with a TypeConverter or similar) so that a LINQ query can compare them? I've seen other similar questions on SO but nothing that points to making the types convertible between each other to solve the problem. Collection Types: public class Data { public int ID { get; set; } } public class ViewModel { private Data _data; public ViewModel(Data data) { _data = data; } }

Why or how does this prove JavaScript array equality?

做~自己de王妃 提交于 2019-12-05 21:50:31
问题 In this answer there is a simple function that will return array equality for arrays that contain primitive values. However, I'm not sure why it works. Here is the function: function arrays_equal(a,b) { return !!a && !!b && !(a<b || b<a); } I'm mostly interested in the second half; this bit: !(a<b || b<a) Why does the < and > work when comparing the arrays but the == doesn't? How do the less than and greater than methods work within JavaScript? 回答1: With < / > , the arrays are converted to

Is there a nice simple way to check if a variable in Javascript has a value?

本秂侑毒 提交于 2019-12-05 20:26:00
I want to check this: if ( typeof myVar != "undefined" && myVar != null ) ... In other words, I want to check if a variable has a defined value (including 0 or an empty string), but not undefined or null, which I interpret as valueless. Do I have to do the two-part check each time or is there a handy shortcut? If you know the context of myVar , you should be able to do this: if (this.myVar != null) { ... } If you want to allow 0 and "" as valid values and you want to cover the case of the variable might not even be delcared, but don't consider null a valid value, then you have to specifically

Why is (new Date() == new Date()) false, but (Date() == Date()) is true? [duplicate]

半城伤御伤魂 提交于 2019-12-05 20:15:09
This question already has an answer here: how to determine if 2 dates object equals each other? [duplicate] 3 answers I have been messing around with JSFiddle to solve this problem in FreeCodeCamp. When I use Date as a string (i.e., no "new"): Case 1: function isSameDay (dtFrom, dtTo) { return dtFrom == dtTo } let today = Date() let tomorrow = Date() console.log(today) console.log(tomorrow) console.log(isSameDay(today, tomorrow)) isSameDay returns true . However when I use Date as a constructor (with "new"): Case 2: function isSameDay (dtFrom, dtTo) { return dtFrom == dtTo } let today = new

VB.Net: test multiple values for equality?

大憨熊 提交于 2019-12-05 18:42:47
How do you test multiple values for equality in one line? Basically I want to do if (val1 == val2 == val3 == ... valN) but in VB.Net. If val1 = valN AndAlso val2 = valN AndAlso ... Then End If This can get cumbersome when testing more than a few values. If you have a lot of values to test and do this very often, you could write you a helper like this: Public Function AllTheSame(ByVal ParamArray values() As Object) As Boolean For index As Integer = 1 To values.Length - 1 If values(0) <> values(index) Then Return False Next Return True End Function <Fact()> Public Sub testAllTheSame() Assert

How do I compare a vector against a reversed version of itself?

情到浓时终转凉″ 提交于 2019-12-05 16:53:56
Why won't this compile? fn isPalindrome<T>(v: Vec<T>) -> bool { return v.reverse() == v; } I get error[E0308]: mismatched types --> src/main.rs:2:25 | 2 | return v.reverse() == v; | ^ expected (), found struct `std::vec::Vec` | = note: expected type `()` found type `std::vec::Vec<T>` Read up on the documentation for the function you are using: Reverse the order of elements in a slice, in place. Or check the function signature: fn reverse(&mut self) The return value of the method is the unit type, an empty tuple () . You can't compare that against a vector. Stylistically, Rust uses 4 space

On Java 7's equals() and deepEquals()

本秂侑毒 提交于 2019-12-05 13:05:23
问题 Method description says: Returns true if the arguments are deeply equal to each other and false otherwise... Equality is determined by using the equals method of the first argument. Which (to me) suggests that Objects are deeply equal if every object they maintain references to are also equal using the equals() method. And every objects they have a reference to are also equal. And .. So .. equality is determined by using the equals method of the first argument. How is this different from

short-cutting equality checking in F#?

家住魔仙堡 提交于 2019-12-05 12:47:35
In F#, the equality operator (=) is generally extensional, rather than intensional. That's great! Unfortunately, it appears to me that F# does not use pointer equality to short-cut these extensional comparisons. For instance, this code: type Z = MT | NMT of Z ref // create a Z: let a = ref MT // make it point to itself: a := NMT a // check to see whether it's equal to itself: printf "a = a: %A\n" (a = a) ... gives me a big fat segmentation fault[*], despite the fact that 'a' and 'a' both evaluate to the same reference. That's not so great. Other functional languages (e.g. PLT Scheme) get this