All right, all right! Interim decision regarding qualified Object methods

[Mehrdad]

On Friday, 13 July 2012 at 02:11:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> No, it's not.  Everything depends on druntime.  If you think it 
> was so easy, look at the date of this bug report, which all the 
> top dogs agreed with: 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1824

Thanks for providing the link, I'll take a look at it. I'd never 
known opEquals was treated specially by the compiler (aside from 
operator overloading of course), that would change a lot of 
things.


>> 2. Isn't it kinda /trivial/ to avoid opEquals? Just don't use 
>> it. Make up your own method. What's wrong with this?
> Yes, it is.  There isn't anything wrong with that, and it has 
> been suggested -- if you want non-const opEquals, write your 
> own method.
> But I think we are past that point, in all likelihood, opEquals 
> is going away from Object.


Well I'm not understanding the point of this post then... though 
thanks for letting me know I guess.