On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:48:42AM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On 7/23/14, 9:45 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote: > >Why isn't "a==b" rewritten as "a.opCmp(b)==0"?? I'm pretty sure TDPL > >says this is the case (unfortunately I'm at work so I can't check my > >copy of TDPL). > > > >https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13179 > > > >:-( > > It's a good decision. There are types that are comparable for equality > but not compared for ordering. -- Andrei
That's the wrong way round. I fully agree that we should not autogenerate opCmp if the user defines opEquals, since not all types comparable with equality are orderable. However, surely all orderable types are equality-comparable! Therefore, if opCmp is defined but opEquals isn't, then we should autogenerate opEquals to be the same as a.opCmp(b)==0. T -- No! I'm not in denial!
