From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 09:47:51
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
| From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr_at_[hidden]>
| > I didn't say I needed a *particular* order; what is important is the
| > _ability_ to use it as a key. Yes, one can define one each time one
| > needs it (I used the lexicographical compare).
| > Similar arguments would apply for pointers (in general) also, but it
| > is much more convenient to say std::map<T*, U>, than
| > std::map<T*, U, MyCompare> when the exact ordering MyCompare doesn't
| > really matter.
| The question remains, then, which intervals shall the ordering consider to
| be equivalent? Is the lexicographic ordering adequate?
For reasons given elsewhere in this thread, I lean towards
lexicographic although I understand the arguments for the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk