|
Boost : |
From: Jan Langer (jan_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-27 14:52:43
David Abrahams wrote:
>> 1) Instead of "operator bool", use the unspecified-bool-type discussed
>>elsewhere on this list; it's safer.
>
> Yup.
ok, i changed it.
>> 2) I'm not sure that the choice of the name is ideal. OTOH, I can't think
>>of a better one...
>
> lexicographic?
i dont bother about the name. if this is better i will change it.
>> 3) I'd like to see a general solution for this problem using real
>>(late-bound) function objects as well, if you know what I mean. This would
>>be a lot harder, though, so maybe it should be put on a wish-list. Have you
>>given any thought to this approach?
>
> return compare.less(p1.x, p2.x)
> .greater(p1.y, p2.y)
> .call(f, p1.z, p2.z);
now this would be:
return compare (p1.x, p2.x, std::less <double> ())
(p1.y, p2.y, std::greater <double> ())
(p1.z, p2.z, f);
or nearly the same:
return compare (p1.x, p2.x)
(p2.y, p1.y)
(p1.z, p2.z, f);
if the name lexicographic is ok, i will put it in the sandbox. i assume
the directory utility is the correct place.
jan
-- jan langer ... jan_at_[hidden] "pi ist genau drei"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk