From: Sylvain Pion (pion_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-06 15:56:39
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 09:25:32PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> | But there will be no _default_ order, because there is no suitable default !
> No suitable default for *exactly what*?
Suitable for the _primary_ usage of intervals, i.e. controlling roundoff
errors, not serving as keys in ordered containers.
People say it's no good to have std::less different from operator<,
so it should be the same.
Your suggested lexicographic order as default is senseless for the primary
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk