http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10771
--- Comment #2 from QAston <[email protected]> 2013-08-08 11:16:05 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I'm not sure it should. It would blend the notion of *what* the comparison > compares. For example, in the opposite case: > > Nullable!Test a; > Nullable!Test b = 5; > > if (a == b) ... //Legal ? > > Arguably, this is a mistake, as a null was used in a comparison. But it now > simply returns false. > > And I don't think it's OK to assert when *one* of both are null, yet not both, > so I'm not entirely sure about the proposed enhancement. I forgot to say that I'd expect the case you posted as legal as well. I thought that this was a simple analogy to how null works in the language, but apparently at the time of posting I forgot that null is never compared with opEquals, it uses [is] operator instead. Phobos doc state that Nullable: "Defines a value paired with a distinctive "null" state that denotes the absence of a value." I was paying more attention to the "distinctive state" than to the "absence of a value". Now I see that it makes no sense to compare absences. In my case it was useful however, so maybe this may be a candidate for a separate type or template flag. Anyways comparision semantics should be mentioned in the doc imo. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
