A fresh look at comparisons

[Janice Caron]

On 15/04/2008, Bruce Adams <tortoise_74 at yeah.who.co.uk> wrote:
>  I don't think even this is safe. The normal definition of inheritance is

Well, that's kindof the point. is(==) wouldn't /use/ inheritance. It
wouldn't be inheritable. It's just like constructors aren't
inheritable.

The whole point is the recognition that inheritance is not the right
mechanism when it comes to comparisons, and hence the quest for a
different mechanism that /is/ appropriate.


>  Yes. The semantics are there. We just need to find a syntax that fits
> better with D.
>  This doesn't quite sit right when everything else is an Op-something.

It wouldn't be a function in the conventional sense. Choosing a syntax
that makes it look /not/ like a function is entirely deliberate. It's
just like constructors don't look like functions; destructors don't
look like functions; class invariants don't look like functions; unit
tests don't look like functions.

opAdd() is a function, subject to all the normal rules of functions,
including inheritance, overloading, overriding, etc. They're different
beasts, so they need to look different, syntactically.

(Also, I chose "is" so as to avoid introducing a new keyword).