On 7/25/2014 11:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Well, we can argue about this until the cows come home, but at least for the present regression being addressed, I think Jonathan's fix is the best option (or the least of all evils): revert the compiler change that causes a compile error when the user defines opCmp but not opEquals.
His fix is also what I proposed - we both came to the same conclusion.
In the meantime, I think much of the confusion comes from the current documentation not be adequately clear about the reasoning behind having opCmp and opEquals, so it's too easy to get the wrong impression that defining opCmp is enough to make things work, or to have a fuzzy inaccurate understanding for how opCmp interacts with opEquals, and when/why to use each. I think a documentation PR is in order.
I welcome a PR from you on this!
