Unable To Overload != Operator Due To Error 3 requires a matching operator ?

Question

2.33/5 (3 votes)

See more:

Unable To Overload != , Error 3 The operator 'ConsoleApplication13.pl.operator !=(ConsoleApplication13.pl, ConsoleApplication13.pl)' requires a matching operator '==' to also be defined C:\Users\htg\documents\visual studio 2013\Projects\ConsoleApplication13\ConsoleApplication13\Program.cs 37 28 ConsoleApplication13 . t

C#

class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            pl a ,b,c;
           a= new pl();
            b=new pl();
            a.mark=99;
            b.mark=10;
            c = a+b;
            if (c != b)
                Console.WriteLine("is not equal");
            else
                Console.WriteLine("both are equal");
            Console.WriteLine(c.mark);
           Console.ReadLine();
        }
    }
    class pl
    {
        public int mark;
        public static pl operator+ ( pl a , pl b) // 1. here It Work's Perfectly At + overloading
        {
            pl mm = new pl();
            mm.mark = a.mark + b.mark;
            return mm;

        }
        public static bool operator!= (pl m , pl n) // 2. unable to overload
        {
            if (m.mark != n.mark)
                return true;
            else
                return false;
        }       
    }

Posted 3-Dec-15 18:32pm

Hitesh Jain

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

BillWoodruff · Accepted Answer · 2015-12-03T21:31:00

Yes, it is required to implement overloads for both == and != if you implement one of them.

There's a very standard way of doing this, and you should also implement an over-ride for the .Equals method:

C#

public class SomeClass
{
    public string ClassName { set; get; }

    public SomeClass(string name)
    {
        ClassName = name;
    }

    protected bool Equals(SomeClass other)
    {
        return string.Equals(ClassName, other.ClassName);
    }

    public override bool Equals(object obj)
    {
        if (ReferenceEquals(null, obj)) return false;
        if (ReferenceEquals(this, obj)) return true;
        if (obj.GetType() != this.GetType()) return false;
        return Equals((SomeClass)obj);
    }

    public override int GetHashCode()
    {
        return (ClassName != null ? ClassName.GetHashCode() : 0);
    }

    public static bool operator ==(SomeClass c1, SomeClass c2)
    {
        return c1.ClassName == c2.ClassName;
    }

    public static bool operator !=(SomeClass c1, SomeClass c2)
    {
        return !(c1 == c2);
    }
}

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Accepted Answer · 2015-12-03T18:42:00

Solution 1

This is not a question, but it's not hard to see what you are missing. It is required that you implemented both == and != (or none of them). If you think about it, you may understand that this is a pretty logical rule.

—SA

Posted 3-Dec-15 18:42pm

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov

Comments

Hitesh Jain 4-Dec-15 2:33am

You Mean To Say That When overloading != We have to overload == as well in c#

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 4-Dec-15 2:43am

Of course. Do you understand that it makes perfect sense? And will you accept my answer formally? That's all you need, at the moment.
—SA

Hitesh Jain 4-Dec-15 2:50am

yes but why we need to overload both != As well as == or vice versa , see when you are overloading (a!=b) , it will give you result that's it than again why we need to check for(a==b) And It Does Not Make Any Sense

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 4-Dec-15 2:57am

It's not "visa versa". You need both or none, period. And it does a lot of sense. You just did not think about it in different aspects, not yet.

Why? Because it's the rule. Well, in essence, you are formally-logically right, but not having this requirement would only complicate things for both CLR implementation and your users. You can consider this rule as a practical one.
It's naturally to assume that a==b can always be written in the form !(a!=b) and a!=b — in the form !(a==b). Taking out this freedom from your user would be nasty. So this is the requirement.

—SA