Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[pineapple via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 30 September 2016 at 16:25:45 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> But if you or anyone else wants to do wacky stuff with 
> overloaded operators that is not consistent with the built-in 
> types, you're free to do so within how D's overloaded operators 
> work. You're just not going to be able to do it as freely as 
> you can in C++, because that goes against the goals of the 
> operator overloading feature in D, and some of the improvements 
> that were in line with the goals happen to have gotten in the 
> way of such operator overloading abuse.

In your arguments in favor of this limitation of operator 
overloading, you keep referring to these goals, of what operator 
overloads have been intended to do. You've stated and restated 
that same explanation even though it's completely unconvincing 
because while stating this intention you have failed entirely to 
justify it.

How many people have to state it how many times in how many 
different ways before it gets through? These are stupid goals. 
They reflect intention that has no basis in reason, that has no 
basis in reality, that is a blindly-enforced dogma.

It always would have been simpler if, in the first place, 
opBinary had caught comparison operators and opCmp and opEquals 
were omitted. Instead, those making the decisions went out of 
their way to impose these arbitrary limitations. If we can start 
now to untangle that mistake, it will make D more tenable for 
real-world code.

And make no mistake: Perl is fantastic for real-world code 
because real-world code is not elegant, and it doesn't follow the 
rules, and it doesn't care how you meant for a feature to be 
used. Practical languages give the programmer a great deal of 
expressive power, and it's okay if the rules allow nonsense 
expressions because it's up to the programmer, not the language, 
to know what's nonsense and what's not.