WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 07:42:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 July 2014 at 06:50:11 UTC, Manu via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> It's okay, I hate it too.
>> But I equally can't abide == meaning something different than 
>> <, <=, etc.
>> That's insane.
>
> Yes, it is unsound to use opCmp for types that aren't totally 
> ordered:

Yes, that's why it's possible to provide opEquals in addition to 
opCmp. But for the vast majority of cases, opEquals _is_ 
equivalent to opCmp == 0, and element-wise equality is not. 
Defining opEquals to be the latter by default _even in the 
presence of opCmp_ is therefore wrong in almost all cases.