Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-24 13:00:51

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>

> --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:

> > 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.
> A) That's the case here.
> B) Never with an exception? Good rules don't work this way.

We're stuck with the exception for other reasons but don't have to introduce

> C) There are plenty of other cases where this holds true. A classic
> example is std::type_info. Basically any type that doesn't not have
> full ordering but *can* have consistent partial ordering.

But std::type_info is totally ordered. :-)

> > 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?"
> I don't agree with this, but for some I guess it might be a valid
> view point. *IF* there's a compelling enough reason to need this
> however, it's still wrong to expose pn. Instead a same() method (or
> other more suitable name) should be exposed.

Did you read the example in my original message?

Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at