From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-19 12:15:50
on 10/19/01 10:12 AM, Peter Dimov at pdimov_at_[hidden] wrote:
> This is directly related to the infamous LWG issues #225 and #226. Without a
> resolution, implementations shouldn't call the boost:: overload, so we'd
> still end up relying on something that is not 'by the book.'
I agree that assuming that you'll get an optimization when the standard
library does swap calls would be relying on something not by the book.
But we can innocently provide a boost::swap without weighing in on this
issue. Why not? It might even help for some kinds of generic programming.
> Actually it's not longing for a key comparison abstraction, but for an
> ordering abstraction (is a before b?)
Good point. Better language.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk