Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[Matthias Bentrup via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 September 2016 at 18:38:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
>
> Then you could always do something like a.myOp!"<"(b) and 
> a.myOp!">="(b) if you still want to have the operator in there 
> somewhere. You can name the functions whatever you want. You 
> just can't use overloaded operators for it, since it would not 
> be in line with what the operators are supposed to mean and be 
> used for.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Also with mixins and a CTFE D parser you could replace the 
operators by any desired function calls.