"BCS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Hello Nick, > >> 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) >> > > what about where you want to disallow == like with floating point like > cases? I know it doesn't work this way, but if you define opCmp and not > opEquals, I wouldn't mind ==/!= being defined to unimplemented. >
Interesting idea. Although can't </>/<=/>= also have accuracy problems when the values are close?
