From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 11:41:11
On Thursday 05 September 2002 12:16 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
> > It seems there are really only two options here:
> > 1) Don't support any comparison operators, or
> > 2) Use comparison policies
> 3) Pick a fixed meaning for the comparison operators, and provide
> function (object)s for the other kinds of comparison.
Good luck getting agreement on the fixed meaning :) There are already two
different meanings for '<=' in the library ('<=' vs. cerle), and quite a few
more reasonable meanings have been introduced in the review.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk