opIs broke for structs?

[Era Scarecrow]

On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 22:19:44 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> Wait, there's such a thing as overloading 'is'? If there is, 
> that's pretty messed up. The 'is' operator is used for a lot of 
> fundamental stuff, and allowing structs and classes to change 
> that just sounds ... wrong.

  Sure there is, it's just not one you can override to my 
knowledge (along with in (AA & array) I believe). I only referred 
to it as opIs since that's likely how internally the compiler 
deals with it, plus there's a reference to opIs in 2008.

On Saturday, 13 October 2012 at 22:42:35 UTC, bearophile wrote:
> "is" is meant to perform a bitwise comparison (I think today it 
> is working as designed or it's very close to this target).

> So on class references "is" performs a bitwise comparison of 
> the references themselves.

> On values (like structs) "is" compares the struct values 
> bit-wise.
>
> In your code x1 and x2 contain the same bit patterns (32 bits 
> set to zero), so "x1 is x2" is true.

  TDPL pg. 57
[quote]
  The expression a is b compares for alias equality and returns 
true if a and be refer to the same actual object.

  * If a and b are arrays or class references, the result is true 
if and only if a and b are two named for the same actual object.
  * Otherwise, a is b is the same as a == b
[/quote]

  Hmm I had more the impression it was address space only. But if 
it's in the manual and spec, then I'm wrong and just needed a 
refresher on it. Course if structs are relocatable and are 
identical, they are as good as the same object.

  So *shrugs* Sorry for bringing it up then.