[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 Vladimir Panteleev changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 Daniel Čejchan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||czda...@gmail.com --

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 Andrei Alexandrescu and...@erdani.com changed: What|Removed |Added Version|future |D2 --

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #10 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-04-06 16:56:40 PDT --- See also bug 1309 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #9 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2010-09-21 06:16:08 PDT --- I will say the fact that sort does not use opCmp, but does is bad. Worse than that, it uses a default opCmp which may appear to work but doesn't really.

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #6 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2010-09-20 06:03:43 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) Why should the D compiler refuse to compile them? The D compiler has to disallow or warn against common traps. But opCmp is

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #7 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-09-20 16:46:25 PDT --- It seems we are in irreducible disagreement here. But opCmp is a valid function! I can still call it, even though it's not put into the typeinfo. Of course. But when it

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Bealer kevinbea...@gmail.com 2010-09-20 20:04:28 PDT --- I think when you are defining opCmp, it's a bit like overriding a function signature, therefore, if D tries to prevent function hijacking, it makes perfect

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com 2010-09-17 09:18:52 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Answer to comment2: I understand what you say only partially. In my opinion silently ignoring the opCmp() and toHash() like

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 --- Comment #3 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-09-16 17:21:12 PDT --- Answer to comment2: I understand what you say only partially. In my opinion silently ignoring the opCmp() and toHash() like in my first example is not acceptable for the D

[Issue 4290] 'Fragile' opCmp/toHash signature errors

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4290 Kevin Bealer kevinbea...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|