[boost] Re: < instead of less (Was: Any good reason not to have == for shared_ptr?)

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 
maybe /.

> 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