Hello,

what exactly is the reason for the existence of a default opCmp() for classes? Every class that an opCmp() really makes sense for has to implement it anyways, and the others don't want to be compared i guess. If there weren't a standard implementation (or the standard would only throw an exception) this would help detecting programming errors. Or is the operator necessary for the AA-implementation?

Ciao
uwe

Uwe Salomon wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> what exactly is the reason for the existence of a default opCmp() for  classes? Every class that an opCmp() really makes sense for has to implement it anyways, and the others don't want to be compared i guess. If there weren't a standard implementation (or the standard would only throw an exception) this would help detecting programming errors. Or is the operator necessary for the AA-implementation?

I'm not sure if anyone knows the original reason for putting it in.  And several of us have been wanting to get rid of it for ages.

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D/10558

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

"Uwe Salomon" <post@uwesalomon.de> wrote in message news:opsotlm9jm6yjbe6@sandmann.maerchenwald.net...
> Hello,
>
> what exactly is the reason for the existence of a default opCmp() for  classes? Every class that an opCmp() really makes sense for has to  implement it anyways, and the others don't want to be compared i guess. If  there weren't a standard implementation (or the standard would only throw  an exception) this would help detecting programming errors. Or is the  operator necessary for the AA-implementation?

I think you have it right. FWIW, it's a very unpopular feature.