Date: 1999-11-09 22:49:59
"dave abrahams" <abraham-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> P.S. I don't love the idea of defining a non-member op==, etc. with
> towards encouraging users to specialize for the comparison of object
> contents. It seems rather like a nightmare to have shared_ptr<X> and
> shared_ptr<Y> differ so significantly.
Do you mean that op== should be a member, or that it's OK for it to be
a non-member, but people shouldn't be encouraged to specialize it?
-- Ivan J. Johnson
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk