On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 02:11:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
No, it's not. Everything depends on druntime. If you think it
was so easy, look at the date of this bug report, which all the
top dogs agreed with:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824
Thanks for providing the link, I'll take a look at it. I'd never
known opEquals was treated specially by the compiler (aside from
operator overloading of course), that would change a lot of
things.
2. Isn't it kinda /trivial/ to avoid opEquals? Just don't use
it. Make up your own method. What's wrong with this?
Yes, it is. There isn't anything wrong with that, and it has
been suggested -- if you want non-const opEquals, write your
own method.
But I think we are past that point, in all likelihood, opEquals
is going away from Object.
Well I'm not understanding the point of this post then... though
thanks for letting me know I guess.
