On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 10:43:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 09:48:55 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 7/26/14, 2:19 AM, "Marc Schütz" <schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
Yes, that's why it's possible to provide opEquals in addition
to opCmp.
Not quite, opCmp would then have to throw if opCmp(a,b) is
incomparable. Conflating incomparable and equal values as 0 is
a bad idea when sorting. That means incomparable values are
sprinkled randomly over the sort.
Ok, I see what you mean, and I agree. If you can have
incomparable elements, you cannot sort reliably.
But you were responding to Manu:
But I equally can't abide == meaning something different than
<, <=, etc.
That's insane.
I somehow took your response as disagreement with him.
