On 7/26/14, 2:19 AM, "Marc Schütz" <schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
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.
Case-insensitive ordering is a simple example. Field for field
comparison is the right default whether or not opCmp is defined.
Andrei
