Sean Cavanaugh:
Well, right now the binary operators == != >= <= > and < are
required to return bool instead of allowing a user defined
type, which prevents a lot of the sugar you would want to make
the code nice to write.
The hypothetical D sugar I was looking for is this, where 'a',
'b' and 'c' are normal dynamic arrays of doubles (not of float[4]
of double[2]) (currently this code is a syntax error):
if (a[] > 0)
b[] += c[];
The front-end is able to implement those two lines of code as it
likes, like seeing those normal arrays as arrays of double[2] (or
double[4] on more modern CPUs) and put there all the needed
intrinsics or assembly needed to implement that semantics.
So what's the problem the > operator causes in this code?
Bye,
bearophile
