On 03/18/2013 12:19 AM, Peter Williams wrote:
The current signatures for opCmp/opEqual mean that code like:bool strictly_ordered(T)(in T[] list) { for (auto j = 1; j < list.length; j++) { if (list[j - 1] >= list[j]) return false; } return true; } will fail to compile if T is a class because opCmp cannot be called with a const argument. This restricts the quality of code that can be written by limiting legitimate use of in/const arguments to functions/methods. Trying to work around this problem by defining opCmp/opEquals for the class being used with in or const argument does not work as they are not recognised as an override of the Object methods.
Yes they are.
So my question is "Why are the arguments to opEquals and opCmp (for Objects) not declared in or const?".
Because not all valid implementations can be. They shouldn't be in Object anyway.
