WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes
Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Jul 23 17:51:31 PDT 2014
On Thursday, 24 July 2014 at 00:31:55 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I would argue that the compiler should still be generating
> opEquals even if opCmp is defined.
I take this back. As I later suggested in a post somewhere else
in this thread (and the bug report that H.S. Teoh opened), I
think that we should continue to not define opEquals, but we
should add a way to tell the compiler to use the
default-generated one (similar to what C++11 does). That way, the
programmer is forced to consider what opEquals is supposed to do
when opCmp is defined, but they're still able to use the
default-generated one. The same goes for toHash.
Regardless, because automatically making opEquals be
lhs.opCmp(rhs) == 0 incurs a silent performance hit, I think that
it's a bad idea.
- Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list