Comparing interfaces does not call opEquals

[Jarrett Billingsley]

--------------------------------------
"Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.2.1217360707.1156.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...

What is the reason that COM interfaces need to pretend to be D interfaces in 
the first place?  As opposed to some special COMInterface type.  I can't 
really think of any situation where you would need to treat a COM interface 
and a regular interface the same way without knowing that one was a COM 
interface.  Or at least in a way that it would matter.  For instance you 
could write a template that takes either a COM interface or a D interface, 
but in that case you generally won't care what the thing is underneath.

Can someone enlighten me?  I've never really been able to understand what 
problem is supposed to be solved by conflating D Interfaces and COM 
interfaces.

--bb

--------------------------------------

Bill, could you post in plaintext please?

I've never been able to figure it out either.  COM is a dying technology on 
a closed platform.  It seems arbitrary to deem it for inclusion as a core 
language feature in a cross-platform language, and when it starts making 
other things impossible, like casting interfaces to objects, it seems more 
like a ball-and-chain.  In ten years, will the inclusion of COM interfaces 
really seem like such a good idea?

Smells of "all the world's a Windows machine" to me.