From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-24 12:31:28
> Sometimes it's valid to have less<type> but not operator<(type,
> type). Not that this is such a case, but it makes it less likely
> that a "dangerous precedent" is being set.
No, it's never valid to have less<type> but not operator<. The only
exception is for pointers that don't point into the same array.
> > Consider this case:
> > shared_ptr<A> pa;
> > shared_ptr<B> pb;
> > Do pa and pb point to the same object? No way to tell without
> > pa.pn and pb.pn.
> I don't get this. Take shared_ptr<> out of the equation and you get
> A* pa;
> B* pb;
> Do pa and pb point to the same object now?
I don't know.
> If you can figure this
> out then you can figure it out for shared_ptr<> by using get(), and
> if you can't than shared_ptr<> shouldn't allow you to figure it out
shared_ptr is a bit different from a raw pointer. It reperesents shared
ownership. I ask the legitimate question "do pa and pb share ownership?"
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk