On 7/23/2014 9:45 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13179
Consider also:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2bl51j/programming_in_d_a_great_online_book_for_learning/cj75gm9
The current scheme breaks existing code - code that was formerly correct and
working.
AAs don't make sense if the notion of == on members is invalid. AAs formerly
required opCmp, and yes, opCmp could be constructed to give different results
for opCmp==0 than ==, but I would expect such an object to not be used in an AA,
again because it doesn't make sense.
Using the default generated opEquals for AAs may break code, such as the an AA
of the structs in the parent post, but it seems unlikely that that code was
correct anyway in an AA (as it would give erratic results).
Kenji's rebuttal https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13179#c2 is probably
the best counter-argument, and I'd go with it if it didn't result in code breakage.
