http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1596
--- Comment #11 from Stewart Gordon <s...@iname.com> 2011-07-08 16:42:24 PDT --- I'm not sure you get the point. It's to give the class designer the choice between in-place modification and creating a new object as the implementation of op=. OK, so a op= b ought to be automatically equivalent to a = a op b in the absence of an opOpAssign. So the rule would be to define opOpAssign iff you want it to modify in-place. But this still doesn't cover cases where whether the modification is in-place isn't a compile-time constant. Look at how ~= works for instance. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------