Re: [boost] Re: Smart pointer status, directions, thoughts

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
another.

> 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.