Overloading relational operators separately; thoughts?

[Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, 2016-09-30 at 15:38 -0700, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
wrote:

> A more productive way forward is for you (and those who agree with
> you) to 
> prepare a formal DIP and submit it. It's the way significant language
> change 
> proposals are done.

But is the effort worth it? Will the DIP and PR be assessed? Does it
have any chance of success? Is there any chance of this long standing
position of D on overloading operators being overturned?

Saying "Go prepare a DIP" is both indicating the right thing to do, but
also a mechanism of deflecting the idea from having any chance of
success at all.

So does a well prepared DIP have a chance of changing D's operator
overloading or not?  

-- 
Russel.
=============================================================================
Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel at winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20161001/a6c96352/attachment.sig>