Re: Operator overloading for size_t

[Alec Stewart via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Thursday, 14 March 2019 at 18:25:17 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 06:07:46PM +0000, Alec Stewart via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]

    bool opEquals(ref const Interval i) const {

// probably would be a bit more than just this, but for this issue

        // let's just stick with this.

return d_start.opEquals(other.d_start) && d_end.opEquals(other.d_end);

    }

There's no need to call opEquals explicitly like that. All you need to do is to use <, ==, and > as you normally would:

     bool opEquals(ref const Interval i) const {
         return d_start == other.d_start) && d_end == d_end;
     }


T

Thanks. I somehow managed to overthink this...

For < and >, would one do this?

    size_t opCmp(ref const Interval other) const {
        return d_start < other.d_start;
    }

    size_t opCmp(ref const Interval other) const {
        return d_end < other.d_end;
    }

    size_t opCmp(ref const Interval other) const {
        return d_start > other.d_start;
    }

    size_t opCmp(ref const Interval other) const {
        return d_end > other.d_end;
    }

Or would it better to do

    size_t opCmp(ref const Interval other) const {
        if (d_start < other.d_start) {
            return d_start < other.d_start;
        } else if (d_start > other.d_start) {
            return d_start > other.d_start;
        } else if (d_end < other.d_end) {
            return d_end < other.d_end;
        } else if (d_end > other.d_end) {
            return d_end > other.d_end;
        } else {
            return false;
        }
    }