WAT: opCmp and opEquals woes

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 25/07/14 12:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

> The _only_ code that would break would be code that's _already_ broken -
> code that defines opCmp in a way that's inconsistent with the default
> opEquals and then doesn't define opEquals. I see no reason to worry
> about making sure that we don't break code that's already broken.

I see no reason why I should define opEquals when opCmp was used for AA 
keys. You keep ignoring that argument.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg