From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-24 12:56:09
From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > 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.
> Think of the target of a smart pointer as a 1-element array. That is
> the case we have.
My point is that shared_ptr is not required to repeat this mistake.
less<> should be equivalent to operator<. There's no reason to split them
-- 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