From: me22 (me22.ca_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-10 20:06:35
On 7/10/06, Sohail Somani <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Isn't shared_ptr<T> is supposed to be like T* which has ordering? In
> this case, it's a non-issue no?
My understanding is that < is only well-defined for pointers into the
same array and that < between to arbitrary pointers is otherwise some
sort of UB.
It's less<T*> that provides a full ordering for arbitrary T*s. (By
~ Scott McMurray
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk