struct opCmp?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Robert Fraser" <fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:guihdq$417$3 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <public at kyllingen.NOSPAMnet> wrote in message 
>> news:gui4ml$2g0n$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> I think you have to use opEquals to overload ==. opCmp only applies to 
>>> <, <=, >, and >=.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I figured either opEquals would be defined in terms of opCmp or an 
>> overloaded opCmp would imply a new opEquals defined in terms of it, or 
>> something like that.
>
> I think if opCmp is defined and opEquals is not, an opEquals should be 
> implicitly defined in terms of opCmp.

Yea, I agree. But at the very least, I was thinking that we could use a 
warning when opCmp is defined and opEquals isn't. Can anyone think of a 
reasonable case where it would actually make sense to override opCmp, but 
not opEquals? (that is, without bastardizing them like in a "C++ streams" 
kind of way)