On 25 July 2014 22:06, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 25/07/14 12:39, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > But regardless of whether the efficiency cost is large, you're talking >> about incurring it just to fix the code of folks who couldn't be >> bothered to make sure that opEquals and lhs.opCmp(rhs) == 0 were >> equivalent. You'd be punishing correct code (however slight that >> punishment may be) in order to fix the code of folks who didn't even >> properly test basic functionality. I see no reason to care about trying >> to help out folks who can't even be bothered to test opEquals and opCmp, >> especially when that help isn't free. >> > > By Walter and Andrei's definition opCmp is not to be used for equivalent, > therefor opCmp does never need to be equal to 0. Yes it does, <= and >= are both things that you can type.
