|
Boost : |
From: Dirk Schreib (Dirk.Schreib_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-31 15:21:29
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote
> David Abrahams wrote:
> > But, IIUC, if operator< is not provided, you'd oppose a std::less
> > specialization, right?
>
> Right. When there is one and only one strict weak ordering (equality) for
a
> type, not using operator< and operator== because some users might have
> different expectations is misguided. It is pretty clear what set<variant>
or
> find(first, last, v) is supposed to do; variant_less or variant_equal is
> "required boilerplate" as Howard says. :-)
Thanks! Full ACK!
Dirk
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk