> Think about it - most implementations of > or < will often use the same logic already, spelling this out is "annoying"; mind that for performance reasons it c

> Think about it - most implementations of > or < will often use the same logic already, spelling this out is "annoying"; mind that for performance reasons it can still be worthwhile to implement a == explicitly as equal comparison is often faster than ordering, but that's something the type designer can chose Yup. My C++ code would often include a `int T.compare(const T& a)` member function. Then any comparison operator would be custom written too -- but only to delegate to the custom compare and check its result. This one feature alone will eliminate several lines of boilerplate.