== defined by @auto_hash_equals calls isequal instead of ==

[matthias314]

Wouldn't it be more consistent if == applied == to all fields? There could be a separate definition for isequal that applies isequal to all fields.

[ORBAT]

I'd see defaulting to isequal as a good choice since it'll give you correct results even for the cases where == gives silly results, and I'm under the impression that it's what you should be using for equality comparisons of fields anyhow. That it's inconsistent is in my opinion a bit inconsequential: I'd rather take a == that returns sensible results by default rather than having one that uses == for comparisons, and then having to have a separate isequal method that I'll have to remember to use for my types because == can't be trusted.

[gafter]

Since this repo has been ported to https://github.com/JuliaServices/AutoHashEquals.jl, this is a dup of JuliaServices/AutoHashEquals.jl#18

[gafter]

@ORBAT You're welcome to comment on JuliaServices/AutoHashEquals.jl#18 if you're interested in this topic. All of this code has moved to https://github.com/JuliaServices/AutoHashEquals.jl (it will become version 1.0 soon) and this repo will be archived.