Re: [boost] Review: concept checks.

From: Matthew Austern (austern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-28 16:29:06

"John E. Potter" wrote:
 
> Thanks for the issue and the pointer.  Note that this issue applies
> equally to the functions without a compare object.
> 
> struct S { int a; int b; };
> struct CompS {
>    bool operator() (S lhs, S rhs) {
>       return lhs.a < rhs.a;
>       }
>    };
> bool operator< (S lhs, int rhs) { return lhs.a < rhs; }
> 
> vector<S> v;
> // fill v
> sort(v.begin(), v.end(), CompS());
> cout << lower_bound(v.begin(), v.end(), 42)->b << endl;
> 
> Is this program ill-formed because there is no operator<(S, S)?

I would say that hasn't yet been settled.  I didn't ask for
a show of hands at the Toronto meeting, because I don't
think the issues have been clarified yet, but my impression
of LWG sentiment is that most people are leaning towards
answering "yes".

The arguments in favor of a "yes" answer are:
 - Although the wording is sloppy, I think the only 
   reasonable reading of 25.3, paragraphs 1-5, are 
   that they apply both to an operator< and to an
   explicitly provided function object.  So lower_bound
   is required to take a strict weak ordering, and the
   strict weak ordering requirements involve comparing
   two objects of the same type.
 - 25.3.3 says that when you use lower_bound, the sequence
   you're searching must be ordered according to the same
   comparison that you're (explicitly or implicitly) passing
   to lower_bound.  In this example you're not doing that:
   the sequence is sorted by CompS, and the search
   uses operator<(S, int).
 - The standard gives no guidance about the requirements on
   a mixed-type comparison function.  If mixed-type 
   comparison functions are to be allowed, then clearly
   the standard has to say what they're supposed to look 
   like.

My opinion (not univerally shared) is that the standard is 
defective, but that the most sensible reading of the status 
quo is that a mixed comparison function like CompS is 
currently illegal.  I don't have a strong opinion about 
whether or not it should be legal.

                        --Matt