"Jonathan M Davis" wrote in message
news:zcutsbuilcttvbuah...@forum.dlang.org...
If that's the case, then the default opEquals isn't correct, and the
programmer should have already defined opEquals. If they didn't, then
their code is broken, and I see no reason to penalize the folks who wrote
correct code just to fix someone else's broken code by then defining
opEquals in terms of opCmp.
Just because not all fields _need_ to be compared doesn't mean the default
opEquals was incorrect. The ignored fields could be cached values
calculated from the other fields.
