歧视性工会结构/习惯平等

问题描述

我具有以下已区别的工会:

I have the following discriminated union:

type ActCard = Cellar of card list
                | Chapel of (card option * card option* card option* card option)
                | Smithy | Spy of (card -> bool * card -> bool)

它具有结构上的相等性，直到我将card -> bool添加到Spy为止. 此问题对于如何对记录进行自定义相等很有帮助.但是，我不确定在这种情况下如何最好地实施它.我希望不必在ActCard中枚举每种情况:

It had structural equality until I added the card -> bool to Spy. This question is helpful for how to do custom equality for records. However, I'm not sure how best to implement it in this situation. I would prefer to not have to enumerate each case in ActCard:

override x.Equals(yobj) =
    match x, yobj with
    |  Spy _, Spy _ -> true
    |  Cellar cards, Cellar cards2 -> cards = cards2
    (* ... etc *)

这里有什么更好的方法?

What is a better approach here?

推荐答案

没有更好的方法.如果您不打算使用默认的结构等式，则必须说明等式语义.

There isn't a better approach. If you're not going to use the default structural equality you'll have to spell out equality semantics.

您可以做这样的事情.

[<CustomEquality; CustomComparison>]
type SpyFunc =
  | SpyFunc of (card -> bool * card -> bool)
  override x.Equals(y) = (match y with :? SpyFunc -> true | _ -> false)
  override x.GetHashCode() = 0
  interface System.IComparable with
    member x.CompareTo(y) = (match y with :? SpyFunc -> 0 | _ -> failwith "wrong type")

type ActCard =
  | Cellar of card list
  | Chapel of (card option * card option * card option * card option)
  | Smithy
  | Spy of SpyFunc

这篇关于歧视性工会结构/习惯平等的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！