WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[Regan Heath via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2014 09:39:11 +0100, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 7/25/2014 1:02 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> 3. If opCmp is defined but no opEquals, lhs == rhs will be lowered to
>> lhs.opCmp(rhs) == 0
>
> This is the sticking point. opCmp and opEquals are separate on purpose,  
> see Andrei's posts.

Sure, Andrei makes a valid point .. for a minority of cases.  The majority  
case will be that opEquals and opCmp==0 will agree.  In those minority  
cases where they are intended to disagree the user will have intentionally  
defined both, to be different.  I cannot think of any case where a user  
will intend for these to be different, then not define both to ensure it.

R

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/