I am using the XNA Framework to make a learning project. It has a Point struct which exposes an X and Y value; for the purpose of optimization, it breaks the rules for proper struct design, since its a mutable struct.

As Marc Gravell, John Skeet, and Eric Lippert point out in their respective posts about GetHashCode() (which Point overrides), this is a rather bad thing, since if an object's values change while its contained in a hashmap (ie, LINQ queries), it can become "lost".

However, I am making my own Point3D struct, following the design of Point as a guideline. Thus, it too is a mutable struct which overrides GetHashCode(). The only difference is that mine exposes and int for X, Y, and Z values, but is fundamentally the same. The signatures are below:

public struct Point3D : IEquatable<Point3D>
    public int X;
    public int Y;
    public int Z;

    public static bool operator !=(Point3D a, Point3D b) { }
    public static bool operator ==(Point3D a, Point3D b) { }

    public Point3D Zero { get; }

    public override int GetHashCode() { }
    public override bool Equals(object obj) { }
    public bool Equals(Point3D other) { }
    public override string ToString() { }

I have tried to break my struct in the way they describe, namely by storing it in a List<Point3D>, as well as changing the value via a method using ref, but I did not encounter they behavior they warn about (maybe a pointer might allow me to break it?).

Am I being too cautious in my approach, or should I be okay to use it as is?

  • I can't see how List use hashcode, it just a resizeable array. But try Dictionary<Point3D, int> and it will be broken if hashcode for a key object changed.
    – Bryan Chen
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 5:29
  • I'm curious what use case you have that would make you want a mutable struct in this situation. If I have a Point3D (0,0,0), it wouldn't seem natural to me to change the point to a new location.
    – neontapir
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 5:42
  • @neontapir: As I said, I am mimicking what XNA has done. I know mutable structs are very strongly discouraged, but since XNA wraps around DirectX, it needs to be optimized for efficient memory and processor usage; this is why they make a Point(0,0) mutable, despite best practices.
    – Kyle Baran
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 7:16

2 Answers 2


Let's break it down.

Is a mutable struct with public fields a good idea?

No. You already know that it is not, but you're choosing to play with fire while walking on thin ice anyways. I would advise against using Point as a model. Value types should logically be values, and values don't change, variables change.

That said, there can be good performance reasons for doing what you're doing; I would only do so if I had clear empirical evidence that there was no other way to meet my performance goals.

If I put a mutable struct into a dictionary and then mutate it, can the struct be "lost" in the hash code?

The question is not answerable because it presumes a falsehood. You can't put a mutable struct into a dictionary and then mutate it. Asking "what happens when I do something impossible?" doesn't afford answers upon which you can make engineering decisions.

What happens when I try to mutate a mutable struct that I've put into a dictionary?

Value types are copied by value; that's why they're called "value types". When you fetch the value from the dictionary, you make a copy. If you then mutate it, you mutate the copy. If you try to mutate it directly by changing a field, the compiler will tell you that you are mutating a copy and that the mutation will be lost.

So what's the real danger of putting a mutable struct into a dictionary?

The danger of putting a mutable value type in a dictionary is that mutations are lost, not that the object gets lost in the dictionary. That is, when you say:

struct Counter 
  public int x; 
  public void Increment() { x = x + 1; } 


var c = new Counter();
var d = new Dictionary<string, Counter>();
d["hello"] = c;

then the increment to c is preserved but not copied to the dictionary, and the increment of the dictionary's copy is lost because it is made to a copy, not to the dictionary.

This is very confusing for people, which is why you should avoid it.

  • Structs with self-mutating methods are dangerous, but if one replaces those with static methods that take a struct as a ref parameter, what's the problem? If a struct is held in a dictionary, C# will reject any attempt to modify a field or property "in-place", or to pass that struct as a ref parameter, and the clear solution in either case: read the struct to a variable, modify it, and write it back, will often have cleaner semantics than trying to construct a new immutable object which is just like the old one except for some particular difference.
    – supercat
    Commented May 25, 2016 at 15:14

I see no particular problem in writing a struct like this, once you fully understand the trade-offs. The problem is (presumably) that you want to be to able to store it in a Dict (or similar collection) and you need a HashCode.

One thing you didn't mention is: do your points have identity? That is, if you have two points with the same value, are they the same point? [As two Integers both with the value 7 are the same integer. There is only one Integer with the value 7.]

Mutability implies identity. If a Point3D has identity then its HashCode is derived from its identity. You could use a this pointer or something like a GUID.

If the Point3D has no identity then its HashCode is best derived from its value. If you change the value (say by reusing values from a pool), you better make sure it's not in a Dict-like collection at the time or it will be lost.

Obviously if you don't use hash-based collections then the point is moot.

If you do, consider this code.

public struct ValuePoint {
  public int x;
  public int y;
  public override int GetHashCode() { return (x * 1000 + y) % 97; }
  public ValuePoint(int _x, int _y) { x = _x; y = _y; }
public struct IdentityPoint {
  static int nextkey = 0;
  int key;
  public int x;
  public int y;
  public override int GetHashCode() { return key; }
  public IdentityPoint(int _x, int _y) { key = ++nextkey; x = _x; y = _y; }
class Program {
  Dictionary<ValuePoint, int> dictv = new Dictionary<ValuePoint,int>();
  Dictionary<IdentityPoint, int> dicti = new Dictionary<IdentityPoint,int>();
  HashSet<ValuePoint> setv = new HashSet<ValuePoint>();
  HashSet<IdentityPoint> seti = new HashSet<IdentityPoint>();

  void exec() {
    ValuePoint vp = new ValuePoint(3, 4);
    dictv[vp] = 777;
    dictv[vp] = 888;
    IdentityPoint ip = new IdentityPoint(3, 4);
    dicti[ip] = 777;
    dicti[ip] = 888;

ValuePoint uses its value as its hashkey. If you change the value (x++) then the original value is 'lost', and the assigned value '888' adds a new key instead of updating the existing one.

IdentityPoint uses a unique key. If you change the value (x++) then the original entry is still found and overwritten with the assigned value '888'.

This is a contrived example, but illustrates the point about value versus identity. [The code is bad but good enough for the purpose.]

@EricLippert is a highly regarded writer whom I remember from the early days of COM and the design of .NET and his advice is sound. I think he misses the point by using a dictionary in which the key is a string. The issue of GetHashCode() only arises when the mutable object itself is the key.

  • Re the last paragraph: Isn't it true that such a modified Point3D will only get lost in a hash-based collection? Commented May 13, 2014 at 6:54
  • Ah yes, the points should indeed have identity. For XNA, both the equality operator (==) and Point.Equals() will evaluate to true for two different Point objects, provided they have the same values. Thus, mine should follow this pattern too, I would think.
    – Kyle Baran
    Commented May 13, 2014 at 7:18
  • “you better make sure it's not in a Dict-like collection at the time” How could it be in one? When you retrieve a struct from a collection, you get a copy (see Eric Lippert's answer).
    – svick
    Commented Jun 3, 2014 at 20:59
  • 1
    @svick: If an object has identity (every one is different) then the copy is a different object and you lose any relationship to the one in dict. You can keep your copy and you can mutate it, but it's not the one in the dict any longer.
    – david.pfx
    Commented Jun 3, 2014 at 23:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.