4 ms·
The blogpost says that == is needed while the paper doesn't. I'd say having == is more performant for strings.
by de_watcher 7y ago
The blogpost says that == is needed while the paper doesn't.
I'd say having == is more performant for strings.
- ohazi 7y agoYeah, I just skimmed through the proposal, and it sounds like the post is wrong, and it works the way I think it should work. You should get == behavior if you only define a reasonable <=>, and if you also define ==, then that definition will take precedence. Edit: argh, no, I'm wrong. I was looking at an earlier draft. So you do have to define == as well as <=>, for mostly technical reasons. Fine, I guess that answers my question.
- tsimionescu 7y agoIt's basically for performance reasons, as I understand it, not technical limitations or something like that.