On 26 July 2014 06:38, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/25/2014 4:10 AM, Regan Heath wrote: > >> Sure, Andrei makes a valid point .. for a minority of cases. The >> majority case >> will be that opEquals and opCmp==0 will agree. In those minority cases >> where >> they are intended to disagree the user will have intentionally defined >> both, to >> be different. I cannot think of any case where a user will intend for >> these to >> be different, then not define both to ensure it. >> > > You've agreed with my point, then, that autogenerating opEquals as > memberwise equality (not opCmp==0) if one is not supplied will be correct > unless the user code is already broken. > No, because there's no obvious reason to define opEquals if you do define opCmp, and the opEq
