recursive equal, and firstDifference functions

[Dan]

On Wednesday, 20 March 2013 at 03:10:41 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
>
> The way == is defined is very clean and straightforward. There 
> _are_ bugs which
> complicate things (e.g. 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3789 ),
> but those can and will be fixed. The design itself is solid.
>

Thanks for the detailed explanation. If 3789 covers strings, 
dynamic arrays and associative arrays and it were fixed then I 
agree, it is clean and straightforward. If I read it correctly 
with this fix it would change the current opEquals from 
semantically shallow to semantically deep by default. 
Semantically deep equality is comfortable to me, but I would 
imagine by now there is a fair amount of code that might rely on 
a false result from opEquals if the members (slices, associative 
arrays) are not bitwise the same.

Thanks
Dan