Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-26 14:10:26

----- Original Message -----
From: "Darin Adler" <darin_at_[hidden]>

> not standard-conforming. But I now see that specifically says
> that the specialization must "meet the standard library requirements for
> the original template", and that in the case of std::less, that means it
> must have the same result as using the < operator directly.
> This was the point I missed in your original posting. Perhaps you assumed
> this was common base knowledge and didn't need to be called out.
> It seems like a compelling argument to me that does justify a change to
> shared_ptr.
> Beman, Greg, Dave, what do you think?

On first sight I'd say Peter may have uncovered a defect in the standard. I
don't think we meant to say that about std::less<>.


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