我非常支持让编译器为你做尽可能多的工作。当编写一个简单的类时，编译器可以为你提供以下“免费”:
默认(空)构造函数 复制构造函数 一个析构函数 赋值运算符(operator=)
但是它似乎不能给你任何比较操作符——比如operator==或operator!=。例如:
class foo
{
public:
std::string str_;
int n_;
};
foo f1; // Works
foo f2(f1); // Works
foo f3;
f3 = f2; // Works
if (f3 == f2) // Fails
{ }
if (f3 != f2) // Fails
{ }
这有什么好的理由吗?为什么执行逐个成员的比较是一个问题?显然，如果类分配内存，那么你要小心，但对于一个简单的类，编译器肯定可以为你做这个?
当前回答
c++ 20提供了一种轻松实现默认比较运算符的方法。
例子来自cppreference.com:
class Point {
int x;
int y;
public:
auto operator<=>(const Point&) const = default;
// ... non-comparison functions ...
};
// compiler implicitly declares operator== and all four relational operators work
Point pt1, pt2;
if (pt1 == pt2) { /*...*/ } // ok, calls implicit Point::operator==
std::set<Point> s; // ok
s.insert(pt1); // ok
if (pt1 <= pt2) { /*...*/ } // ok, makes only a single call to Point::operator<=>
其他回答
在这个视频中，STL的创造者Alex Stepanov在13:00左右回答了这个问题。总结一下，在见证了c++的发展之后，他认为:
It's unfortunate that == and != are not implicitly declared (and Bjarne agrees with him). A correct language should have those things ready for you (he goes further on to suggest you should not be able to define a != that breaks the semantics of ==) The reason this is the case has its roots (as many of C++ problems) in C. There, the assignment operator is implicitly defined with bit by bit assignment but that wouldn't work for ==. A more detailed explanation can be found in this article from Bjarne Stroustrup. In the follow up question Why then wasn't a member by member comparison used he says an amazing thing : C was kind of a homegrown language and the guy implementing these stuff for Ritchie told him he found this to be hard to implement!
然后他说，在(遥远的)未来，==和!=将隐式生成。
这有什么好的理由吗?为什么执行逐个成员的比较是一个问题?
这在功能上可能不是问题，但就性能而言，默认的逐个成员的比较可能比默认的逐个成员的赋值/复制更不理想。与赋值顺序不同，比较顺序会影响性能，因为第一个不相等的成员意味着可以跳过其余的成员。如果有一些成员通常是相等的，你想在最后比较它们，而编译器不知道哪些成员更可能是相等的。
考虑这个例子，其中verboseDescription是从一个相对较小的可能的天气描述集中选择的长字符串。
class LocalWeatherRecord {
std::string verboseDescription;
std::tm date;
bool operator==(const LocalWeatherRecord& other){
return date==other.date
&& verboseDescription==other.verboseDescription;
// The above makes a lot more sense than
// return verboseDescription==other.verboseDescription
// && date==other.date;
// because some verboseDescriptions are liable to be same/similar
}
}
(当然，如果编译器意识到比较没有副作用，它就有权忽略比较的顺序，但如果它自己没有更好的信息，它可能仍然会从源代码中获取查询。)
我同意，对于POD类型的类，编译器可以为你做。然而，你可能认为简单的编译器可能会出错。所以最好还是让程序员来做。
我曾经有一个POD案例，其中两个字段是唯一的-所以比较永远不会被认为是正确的。然而，我所需要的比较只是在有效负载上进行比较——这是编译器永远无法理解或自己无法解决的问题。
此外，他们不需要花很长时间来写，不是吗?!
编译器不会知道你想要的是指针比较还是深层(内部)比较。
更安全的做法是不实现它，让程序员自己来做。然后他们可以做出所有他们喜欢的假设。
It's answered C++ didn't do == because C didn't, and here is why C provides only default = but no == at first place. C wanted to keep it simple: C implemented = by memcpy; however, == cannot be implemented by memcmp due to padding. Because padding is not initialized, memcmp says they are different even though they are the same. The same problem exists for empty class: memcmp says they are different because size of empty classes are not zero. It can be seen from above that implementing == is more complicated than implementing = in C. Some code example regarding this. Your correction is appreciated if I'm wrong.
