From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 06:50:57
Eric Friedman wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> Provide operator<. Wait six months. Collect feedback. If there is
>> evidence that operator< is evil, remove it and document why it is
>> not supplied.
> OK, I'm willing to go along with this. I'll probably also include
> operator==, with a similar plan for future evaluation.
> Early evidence that operator< is evil though may be demonstrated in
> the following:
> boost::variant<int, double> var(3.0);
> if (var <= 3) // false
This is a potential problem, I agree. Or rather, this:
if(var < 4)
is a potential problem.
If it causes problems in practice, we might need to add
void operator<(variant, everything);
void operator<(everything, variant);
to introduce ambiguities.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk