Hello Nick,
"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?
Yes but at least they sometimes work. with == you might as well have the
optimizer replace it with false.
