"Robert Fraser" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> "Lars T. Kyllingstad" <[email protected]> wrote in message >> news:[email protected]... >>> I think you have to use opEquals to overload ==. opCmp only applies to >>> <, <=, >, and >=. >>> >> >> Oh, I figured either opEquals would be defined in terms of opCmp or an >> overloaded opCmp would imply a new opEquals defined in terms of it, or >> something like that. > > I think if opCmp is defined and opEquals is not, an opEquals should be > implicitly defined in terms of opCmp.
Yea, I agree. But at the very least, I was thinking that we could use a warning when opCmp is defined and opEquals isn't. Can anyone think of a reasonable case where it would actually make sense to override opCmp, but not opEquals? (that is, without bastardizing them like in a "C++ streams" kind of way)
