From: Valentin Bonnard (Bonnard.V_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-12 14:16:38
Dave Abrahams wrote:
> > 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.
I also propose that we define operator+ on shared_array. And
> We only rob the user of convenience.
That's probably why the original STL used protected instead of
private: they didn't wanted to ``rob'' the right to do manipulate
the internals of the STL classes.
-- Valentin Bonnard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk