Stable D version?

[Mehrdad]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2013 at 05:05:29 UTC, Chris Cain wrote:
> I suppose using "is" is more appropriate for this type of 
> behavior.


If when you see a == b you think,
	Hey, that's equivalent to (a.d is b.d)
I suppose that when you see (a is b) you think,
	Hey, that's equivalent to a.d == b.d
?


> But calling it "broken" is a bit too strong.


If it doesn't make sense, it's broken.


Implementing == as 'is' by default doesn't make sense when there 
is already an 'is' operator that could do the same, hence it's 
broken.