
Boost : 
From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 20000907 07:25:52
In message <004501c018bc$c760c4e0$520a24d4_at_pdimov>, Peter Dimov
<pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes
>The standard does not assume that !(a < b) && !(b < a) implies a == b.
True, but it's the closest to hand for an equivalence relationship.
I think it is strange (nonintuitive, indeed) to define relational
operators such that
!(a < b) && !(b < a) does not imply a == b
Don't you think? Subset and subtyping relationships often use the
notation like this, but I think that is a questionable route and
fortunately one that the STL chose not to follow, preferring
lexicographical_compare instead. That said, I would prefer any of those
interpretations above unspecified (and that preference is ordered ;>).
>> Therefore a precondition to operator< working is that the contents have
>> a valid operator<?
>
>No. ref::operator<, when invoked on refs holding objects of the same type T,
>produces the same ordering as the staticallytyped version.
Except when they don't have an operator<: How can you produce the same
ordering as the staticallytyped version when the staticallytyped
version does not compile? Mu!
So the precondition I stated still holds, although I should have been
more careful in expressing it: "Therefore a precondition to operator<
working is that the contents (1) have an operator<, and (2) it imposes a
strict weak ordering".
>> >ref(T t) < ref(U u) iff T < U  (T == U && t < u).
>>
>> That's not the same as what the current ref<> does.
>
>The current ref::op< does
>
>ref(T t) < ref(U u) iff T == U? t < u: T < U
>
>which is equivalent to the above.
Which is still not the same! If T == U, and t < u is not a legal
expression, it still introduces an ordering, therefore it is not "iff".
This also brings us back again to T < U being intuitive: Until you
started outlining ref<>'s semantics, the only common definition of which
I was aware for interpreting this notation was "T is a subtype of U"
(which is not in fact a strict weak ordering). Hmm, even since, I still
reckon that's the only common definition ;)
No, in fact, I'm even more convinced: How can "unspecified" be a more
intuitive definition than "is a subtype of", or "is included within", or
"is less than", or "is lexicographically less than"? Just because it has
wings doesn't mean it can fly.
Kevlin
____________________________________________________________
Kevlin Henney phone: +44 117 942 2990
Curbralan Limited mobile: +44 7801 073 508
mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden] fax: +44 870 052 2289
http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk