On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:42:19PM +0000, via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 18:53:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d > wrote: > >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. > > You can define an order for sets/intervals without equality... For > fuzzy numbers it gets even worse. You can define it such that a<b and > b>a both are true...
(a<b && b>a) is true for ints. T -- All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore all men are Socrates.