C# :
Welcome to C#, as it is a very powerfull and typed language you will never have issues with Equals and "==".

Also C# : (image)

Edit : It's actually wrking as expected, but I would';ve guessed that "==" would wotk for basic types

== is defacto shorthand for Object.Equals. The rules for equals are:

1. Is it the same type (can be invoked by calling .equals)
2. Is there an implicit operator for the object that can indirectly satisfy the equals signature

Well yes but in the first example, while left and right part are both “int”, “==” invoke Object.Equals. So it does reference comparison (Which rightfully returns false)
But .Equals (2d example) invoke the “right one” and compares values of int.
That what surprised me a little.

@SortOfTested

yep, exactly the same !

@NoToJavaScript
It's like I said, == uses Object.Equals
Your second example is Nullable<int>.Equals, which understands the Nullable abstraction.

https://referencesource.microsoft.com/...

If you do weird shit that boxes items, and/or rely on overloadable operators (such as `==`) or methods (such as Equals()), you better know exactly what you are doing.

@SomeNone True.
A bit of context. I need it for making DataBase MOCK work with a .Find method and table keys may be ints or Guids. Code must handle both.
Here is the final line of code
@highlight
dbSetMock.Setup(set => set.Find(It.IsAny<object[]>())).Returns((object[] input) =>
{
if (!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(idProperty) && idType != null)
{
return elements.SingleOrDefault(x => Convert.ChangeType(x.GetType().InvokeMember(idProperty, System.Reflection.BindingFlags.GetProperty, Type.DefaultBinder, x, null), idType).Equals(Convert.ChangeType(input[0], idType)));
}
throw new Exception("Uknowon id type");
});

I may get flamed for this, but I was always happy with C# 1.x. I was an early adopter of .NET, so I built some stuff on the early releases and it was fantastic. This is pre-generics, and some of the more modern enhancements. Fantastic language.

I wonder how Go will evolve its simplistic structure, given that people have made certain feature requests.

@NoToJavaScript
The reflection seems like it's compensation for lack of a consistent Id naming convention. I would usually want to see something like this if I was having to deal with EF:

I've never even seen Convert.ChangeType what even??