From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 09:31:39
From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | less<> was decoupled from operator< for pointers and it went downhill
> | there.
> Actually, it is the coupling of std::less<> with operator< that I see
> downhill. Just like pointers, there are useful datatypes out there for
> which it doesn't really make sense to have a general operator< but
> for which it would make sense to have a default std::less<>, for use
> with associtive containers fro example.
I can understand this point of view, but given the current situation I still
think that it is better to provide the default comparator via operator<, not
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk