On Wednesday, 13 January 2016 at 02:12:36 UTC, tsbockman wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 January 2016 at 01:43:21 UTC, John Colvin
wrote:
I am all for keeping it simple here, but I still think
there's a problem.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15561
That's a good point.
Interesting. I often use partially-ordered objects in my code,
and therefore define opCmp to return float, making use of the NaN
value. But then I also define opEquals to return false for (NaN
== NaN), and my custom types work as intended.
In fact, the existance of the special floatingpoint operators
like !<> (and beeing able to overload them) was one of the main
reasons for me, to start using D. For me it's a mayor issue if
those operators don't work correct.
I know they are deprecated, but I don't know why. As was pointed
out they are necessary if you want to implement something
partially ordered. That not everybody needs this is no valid
reason to deprecate it.
I hated to be told I should not define opCmp to return float
instead of int, as was also propagated by the "learning D" book.
If this is the common state of the art, I will drop D and start
using my own fork the moment they are not supported anymore.
