简体   繁体   English

“eq()”和“==”有什么区别?

[英]What is the difference between "eq()" and "=="?

This is what the std says:这就是 std 所说的:

pub trait PartialEq<Rhs: ?Sized = Self> {
    /// This method tests for `self` and `other` values to be equal, and is used
    /// by `==`.
    #[must_use]
    #[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]
    fn eq(&self, other: &Rhs) -> bool;

    /// This method tests for `!=`.
    #[inline]
    #[must_use]
    #[stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]
    fn ne(&self, other: &Rhs) -> bool {
        !self.eq(other)
    }
}

And the link: https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/core/cmp.rs.html#207和链接: https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/core/cmp.rs.html#207

This is my code:这是我的代码:

fn main() {
    let a = 1;
    let b = &a;
    println!("{}", a==b);
}

and the compiler told me:编译器告诉我:

error[E0277]: can't compare `{integer}` with `&{integer}`
 --> src\main.rs:4:21
  |
4 |     println!("{}", a==b);
  |                     ^^ no implementation for `{integer} == &{integer}`    
  |
  = help: the trait `PartialEq<&{integer}>` is not implemented for `{integer}`

But when I used eq() , it compiled:但是当我使用eq()时,它编译:

fn main() {
    let a = 1;
    let b = &a;
    println!("{}", a.eq(b));
}

It's actually quite simple, but it requires a bit of knowledge.它实际上很简单,但它需要一些知识。 The expression a == b is syntactic sugar for PartialEq::eq(&a, &b) (otherwise, we'd be moving a and b by trying to test if they're equal if we're dealing with non- Copy types).表达式a == bPartialEq::eq(&a, &b)的语法糖(否则,如果我们正在处理非Copy类型,我们将通过尝试测试它们是否相等来移动ab ) .

In our case, the function PartialEq::eq needs to take two arguments, both of which are of type &i32 .在我们的例子中,function PartialEq::eq需要两个 arguments,它们都是&i32类型。 We see that a: i32 and b: &i32 .我们看到a: i32b: &i32 Thus, &b will have type &&i32 , not &i32 .因此, &b将具有类型&&i32而不是&i32

It makes sense that we'd get a type error by trying to compare two things with different types.通过尝试比较具有不同类型的两个事物,我们会得到一个类型错误是有道理的。 a has type i32 and b has type &i32 , so it makes sense that no matter how the compiler secretly implements a == b , we might get a type error for trying to do it. a具有i32类型, b具有&i32类型,因此无论编译器如何秘密实现a == b ,我们都可能在尝试执行时遇到类型错误。

On the other hand, in the case where a: i32 , the expression a.eq(b) is syntactic sugar for PartialEq::eq(&a, b) .另一方面,在a: i32的情况下,表达式a.eq(b)PartialEq::eq(&a, b)的语法糖。 There's a subtle difference here - there's no &b .这里有一个微妙的区别 - 没有&b In this case, both &a and b have type &i32 , so this is totally fine.在这种情况下, &ab都有类型&i32 ,所以这完全没问题。

The difference between a.eq(b) and a == b in that dot operator does autoref/autoderef on receiver type for call-by-reference methods. a.eq(b)a == b之间的区别在于,点运算符对按引用调用方法的接收器类型执行 autoref/autoderef。

So when you write a.eq(b) compiler looks at PartialEq::eq(&self, other: &Rhs) signature, sees &self reference and adds it to a .因此,当您编写a.eq(b)时,编译器会查看PartialEq::eq(&self, other: &Rhs)签名,查看&self引用并将其添加到a

When you write a == b it desugars to PartialEq::eq(a, b) where a: i32 b: &i32 in your case, hence the error no implementation for `{integer} == &{integer}` .当您编写a == b时,它对PartialEq::eq(a, b) where a: i32 b: &i32在您的情况下,因此错误no implementation for `{integer} == &{integer}`

But why it does not do the same in operators?但是为什么它在运营商中没有做同样的事情呢? See Tracking issue: Allow autoderef and autoref in operators (experiment) #44762请参阅跟踪问题:在运算符中允许 autoderef 和 autoref(实验)#44762

Related information: What are Rust's exact auto-dereferencing rules?相关信息: Rust 的确切自动取消引用规则是什么?

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM