WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/25/2014 5:10 AM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
> Not at all.
>
> If you have a type that has partial ordering (only cares about opCmp, not about
> opEquals), but still keeps the default opEquals, then this would silently break
> someone's code by changing their opEquals semantic.
>
> THIS is the breaking change.

Yes. A subtle but extremely important point. Comparison and Equality are 
fundamentally different operations. Defining opEquals to be the equivalent of 
opCmp==0 is utterly breaking that.