WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 25/07/14 12:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> The compiler _never_ defines opCmp for you. You have to do that
> yourself. So, what you're suggesting would force people to define
> opEquals just because they defined opCmp unless they wanted to take a
> performance hit. And once you define opEquals, you have to define
> toHash. So, what you're suggesting would force a lot more code to define
> toHash, which will likely cause far more bugs than simply requiring that
> the programmer define opEquals if that's required in order to make it
> consistent with opEquals.

Again, you're assuming there will be a performance hit.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg