struct opCmp?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff5d188cba2e03b08e7a0 at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Nick,
>
>> 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)
>>
>
> what about where you want to disallow == like with floating point like 
> cases? I know it doesn't work this way, but if you define opCmp and not 
> opEquals, I wouldn't mind ==/!= being defined to unimplemented.
>

Interesting idea. Although can't </>/<=/>= also have accuracy problems when 
the values are close?