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

From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-11 00:42:10

> Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 
>> P.P.S. The definition of op<, etc. for shared_ptr should use std::less<T*>,
>> which is well defined for all pairs of T* (just using < is not).
>
> The definition of less<shared_(ptr|array)> should do that. < should
> not be defined for these types, because you cannot have two unequal
> shared_(ptr|array) pointing in the same array/struct.

In this case I disagree. We gain nothing by failing to provide a comparison
operator on shared_ptr which imposes an arbitrary ordering. We only rob the
user of convenience.

-Dave