WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 25 July 2014 at 18:54:15 UTC, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 25.07.2014 18:11, schrieb "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>":
>> I'm astonished that it doesn't work like that already. When I 
>> first read
>> the operator overloading docs, I really liked that in D I 
>> don't need to
>> define all the individual comparison operators, but only 
>> opCmp. I
>
> Well, to be fair the documentation, is pretty explicit about 
> it, the headings are "Overloading == and !=" and "Overloading 
> <, <=, <, and <=".

Whatever the outcome of the discussion will be, it needs to be 
documented much better. The current documentation doesn't say 
anything about whether or not, and how opEquals and opCmp relate. 
I doesn't even mention that they are supposed to be consistent.

I'm just afraid that it will not be noticed, because it will be 
"hidden" in the documentation. If the status quo is kept, you 
just won't know you've written wrong code, even though the 
compiler has all the means to tell you.

> The D1 documentation even had a rationale why there's both 
> opEquals and opCmp, no idea why that was dropped for D2.
>
> However, I read about opCmp at some time and in the meantime 
> forgot about the "not for ==" part - but this is probably a 
> problem with my brain (or the long timespan) and not with the 
> documentation.

Well, you're not the only one :-(