On 7/25/2014 5:10 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Not at all.If you have a type that has partial ordering (only cares about opCmp, not about opEquals), but still keeps the default opEquals, then this would silently break someone's code by changing their opEquals semantic. THIS is the breaking change.
Yes. A subtle but extremely important point. Comparison and Equality are fundamentally different operations. Defining opEquals to be the equivalent of opCmp==0 is utterly breaking that.
