On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 07:42:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 06:50:11 UTC, Manu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
It's okay, I hate it too.
But I equally can't abide == meaning something different than
<, <=, etc.
That's insane.
Yes, it is unsound to use opCmp for types that aren't totally
ordered:
Yes, that's why it's possible to provide opEquals in addition to
opCmp. But for the vast majority of cases, opEquals _is_
equivalent to opCmp == 0, and element-wise equality is not.
Defining opEquals to be the latter by default _even in the
presence of opCmp_ is therefore wrong in almost all cases.
