Stable D version?

[Chris Cain]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 05:05:29 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> In any case, I stand by that if you have a particular 
> definition of behavior, you should provide it instead of 
> expecting it to "just work." But I suppose using "is" is more 
> appropriate for this type of behavior. But calling it "broken" 
> is a bit too strong.

Actually, I'm going to strengthen this a bit more. I'd _still_ 
think it's a good idea to keep structs the way they are. I expect 
(as I think many would) structs to be very bare metal. Very 
little auto-magic should touch them because they are used so 
often for low-level tasks and you really ought to be very precise 
when you're defining them and their behavior. In that context, 
"==" being the same as "is" makes sense from my perspective and I 
wouldn't expect anything else unless I explicitly told it 
otherwise.

If you want some of that type of automatic "just works" behavior, 
you're probably using structs as more higher level concepts. 
Maybe consider using a tuple instead?


import std.stdio, std.typecons;
void main() { writeln(tuple("a") == tuple("a".idup)); }


Outputs:
true

And it's shorter and simpler than the struct example.