I am trying out the new HasFlags features, and was wondering if the following should work:
enum.HasFlag(AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Writ
Alternatively, you could just reverse the order of the expression:
//returns true - a bit easier on the eye
(AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write).HasFlag(myAccessRights)
This will return true if you have either Read | Write access. That would be functionally equivalent to:
//also returns true - as per @Ani's answer
myAccessRights & (AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write) != 0
EDIT
As pointed out in the comments, The first expression will return true if myAccessRights is empty, and false if myAccessRights has more than just Read and Write.
From MSDN:
The HasFlag method returns the result of the following Boolean expression.
thisInstance And flag = flag
For a complex flag such as AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write
, this will check that all the "contained" flags are present.
You probably want to check that any of the flags are present, in which case you can do:
myAccessRights & (AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write) != 0
The |
operator is bitwise or. It means that if Read
is 1 and Write
is 2, the value Read | Write
is 3 (see its binary representation). So HasFlag
returns true only if your enum
variable have both Read
and Write
set.
Given the documentation, I'd expect that to return true if the value has both of those flags.
If you want it to test whether your value has either of those flags, you'll need
value.HasFlag(AccessRights.Read) | value.HasFlag(AccessRights.Write)
If that's not good readable enough for you, you may want to look at my Unconstrained Melody project. It so happens that that already has the functionality you want (as extension methods in Flags.cs):
// Same as value.HasFlag(AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write)
value.HasAll(AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write)
// Same as value.HasFlag(AccessRights.Read) | value.HasFlag(AccessRights.Write)
value.HasAny(AccessRights.Read | AccessRights.Write)
Those would make it clearer, IMO. They'd also avoid boxing, and be typesafe :)