On Friday, 25 July 2014 at 07:21:11 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
"Walter Bright" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Determining an ordering can sometimes be more expensive. It
is, after all, asking for more information.
It could also be significantly cheaper, if only a subset of
fields need to be compared.
If that's the case, then the default opEquals isn't correct, and
the programmer should have already defined opEquals. If they
didn't, then their code is broken, and I see no reason to
penalize the folks who wrote correct code just to fix someone
else's broken code by then defining opEquals in terms of opCmp.
- Jonathan M Davis
