From: Joaquin M Lopez Munoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-24 14:40:11
Pavel Vozenilek <pavel_vozenilek <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> Hello JoaquÃn,
> > Yes, I think there's no problem at all in implementing this
> > extension. Consider it done (if I run into trouble I'll let
> > you know.)
> Maybe the feature should wait a bit.
> I know to sound conservative but:
> - I know no container library with this feature
> - it does something at very core level
> It may be better to discuss it before adding.
> I personally do not see anything bad with it
> but I'm not labguage lawyer.
I'll happily do whatever the people agree on.
Personally, I dont't see any core problem in
the extension. The main reason I deem the change
harmless is because we are replacing one function
with one function: if we had to provide different
overloads for say operator==, function template
ordering would play a role, which is more
dangerous (some compilers do not support this
My conclusion is then that the change cannot
posibly break anything --but as I said before,
I'll abide the mailing list's verdict.
JoaquÃn M LÃ³pez MuÃ±oz
TelefÃ³nica, InvestigaciÃ³n y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk