WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Sun Jul 27 13:45:24 PDT 2014


On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 19:04:09 UTC, Fool wrote:
> If a candidate for opCmp does not match the default equivalence 
> relation == (defined implicitly or explicitly specified using 
> opEquals) it should not be defined at all.

Does this mean that you agree that opCmp should define a total 
order?



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list