[boost] Re: Any good reason not to have == for shared_ptr?

From: ivan66_at_[hidden]
Date: 1999-11-09 22:45:33

bill klein <bil-_at_[hidden]> wrote: 
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/boost/?start=915
> Ivan,
> 
> >If operator== were defined in the boost library as a non-member
> >template, then you could specialize it for your particular type
> >to give it the semantics you want when you need them.  Would that
> >satisfy your concerns?
> 
> Yes, I think that sounds like a good compromise. Is
> there any disadvantage to doing it this way?
> 
> 
> -Bill Klein <bill_at_[hidden]>
> 
> 

Only that, as Dave Abrahams points out, it's potentially confusing.  In
other words, while specialization is possible, it's not necessarily a
good idea.

On the other hand, letting users define an operator== for each type as
they see fit could lead to confusion, too, so I don't think it's a good
reason avoid putting operator== into the smart_ptr library.

-- Ivan J. Johnson