From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-23 10:08:00
On Thursday 22 January 2004 08:59 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Time will tell. At the moment, it seems to me that ref(x) == ref(y) means
> &x == &y (at least in bind() context).
> >>> Whatever we do, I do not want reference_wrapper to have its own
> >>> operator==.
> >> Sounds reasonable, although such an operator== doing a pointer
> >> comparison is the technically trivial thing to do here.
> > Right, but it changes the semantics of reference_wrapper<T> because
> > the underlying operator== can be found through implicit conversion to
> > T&.
> Yes, you are right. But there's a corner case here, too. If the underlying
> operator== relies on a user-defined conversion, it won't be found. I'm not
> sure this is a bad thing. :-)
I'm okay with that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk