WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/25/2014 11:05 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Well, we can argue about this until the cows come home, but at least for
> the present regression being addressed, I think Jonathan's fix is the
> best option (or the least of all evils): revert the compiler change that
> causes a compile error when the user defines opCmp but not opEquals.

His fix is also what I proposed - we both came to the same conclusion.


> In the meantime, I think much of the confusion comes from the current
> documentation not be adequately clear about the reasoning behind having
> opCmp and opEquals, so it's too easy to get the wrong impression that
> defining opCmp is enough to make things work, or to have a fuzzy
> inaccurate understanding for how opCmp interacts with opEquals, and
> when/why to use each. I think a documentation PR is in order.

I welcome a PR from you on this!