DictionaryEquality is redundant about generator.equals HOT 4 CLOSED

It's a very good point! Perhaps I can actually check if both the enumerables implement IDictionary<TKey, TValue> and avoid the extra allocation. Cheers for pointing that out!

from generator.equals.

It's a very good point! Perhaps I can actually check if both the enumerables implement IDictionary<TKey, TValue> and avoid the extra allocation. Cheers for pointing that out!

@diegofrata

Agreed. You can also add

// If we have two collections with different counts, we can efficiently resolve their inequality
if (x is ICollection<T> xCollection && y is ICollection<T> yCollection && xCollection.Count != yCollection.Count)
    return false;

// If we a set, we can use its optimized SetEquals method
if (x is ISet<T> xSet) return xSet.SetEquals(y);
if (y is ISet<T> ySet) return ySet.SetEquals(x);

from generator.equals.

I implemented this and bumped the version to 1.0.0 since it's a breaking change and I think it's decent enough to be called 1.0!

Regarding the SetEquals, I did not use your suggestion as UnorderedEquality is not intended to have set semantics. That would require a new attribute, likely called SetEquality.

from generator.equals.

I actually went ahead and renamed the attributes to OrderedEquality and UnorderedEquality to make it more clear, ended up having to bump to 2.0.0 just to be consistent with SemVer.

from generator.equals.