On 25 July 2014 22:06, Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> 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.