WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes
via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Jul 23 15:42:19 PDT 2014
On Wednesday, 23 July 2014 at 18:53:57 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> That's the wrong way round. I fully agree that we should not
> autogenerate opCmp if the user defines opEquals, since not all
> types
> comparable with equality are orderable. However, surely all
> orderable
> types are equality-comparable! Therefore, if opCmp is defined
> but
> opEquals isn't, then we should autogenerate opEquals to be the
> same as
> a.opCmp(b)==0.
You can define an order for sets/intervals without equality...
For fuzzy numbers it gets even worse. You can define it such that
a<b and b>a both are true...
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list