Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[bachmeier via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 30 September 2016 at 01:07:49 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
> The perl example is a line of code buried somewhere that 
> changes the meaning of the rest of the code. Operator 
> overloading is restricted to a specific user-defined type. With 
> such a dramatic difference in the scope of the change, the 
> analogy is useless.

I was responding to someone that wrote: "I also have the presence 
of mind to recognize that my opinions are not universal, and they 
are certainly no basis for imposing arbitrary limits upon another 
person's behavior". I gave an example of what happens when you 
don't want "arbitrary limits".

Claiming that operator overloading only applies to a specific 
user-defined type makes it worse. Having it work one way for 
three types, a different way for four other types, and a third 
way for yet another type doesn't sound like a minor thing.

But have fun debating design decisions that were made long ago 
and aren't going to change.