On Wednesday, 13 January 2016 at 00:31:48 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 01/12/2016 06:52 PM, John Colvin wrote:
On Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 22:28:13 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 01/12/2016 03:56 PM, John Colvin wrote:
Please consider the second design I proposed?
I don't think it solves a large problem. -- Andrei
Ok. Would you consider any solution, or is that a "leave it
broken"?
I'd leave it to a named function. Using the built-in comparison
for exotic orderings is bound to confuse users. BTW not sure
you know, but D used to have a number of floating point
operators like !<>=. Even those didn't help. -- Andrei
I would completely agree, except that we have builtin types that
don't obey this rule. I'd be all in favour of sticking with total
orders, but it does make it hard (impossible?) to make a proper
drop-in replacement for the builtin floating point numbers
(including wrappers, e.g. std.typecons.Typedef can't handle nans
correctly) or to properly handle comparisons between custom types
and builtin floating points (as mentioned by tsbockman).
I am all for keeping it simple here, but I still think there's a
problem.
