opCmp and opEquals woes

[Daniel Murphy via Digitalmars-d]

"Jonathan M Davis"  wrote in message 
news:lzigfacgrlssjuemoqyg at forum.dlang.org...

> The compiler _never_ defines opCmp for you. You have to do that yourself. 
> So, what you're suggesting would force people to define opEquals just 
> because they defined opCmp unless they wanted to take a performance hit 
> <<<<<<<< in the rare case that it actually matters >>>>>>>>>>.
> And once you define opEquals, you have to define toHash. So, what you're 
> suggesting would force a lot more code to define toHash, which will likely 
> cause far more bugs than simply requiring that the programmer define 
> opEquals if that's required in order to make it consistent with opEquals.