[boost] Re: [ptr_container] more operators?

From: Pavel Chikulaev (pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-21 12:22:33

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:d48kcf$ta$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> base::operator==(...) should delegate to a protected or public function.
That won't solve the problem.
>
> | Second if you provide comparasion operators (with concept checking or not)
> | it's quite strange that ptr_containers aren't CopyConstructible and
> Assignable.
>
> not at all. copying by cloning is vastly different from copying; so different
> that those
> two things should not be interchangeable.

I know. But how else could polymorphic objects to be copied correctly?

> I looked briefly at it; I recall to think  that it was not worth the
> effort.
I don't think so, but ok.

> I talked with Howard Hinnant about the issue and I think we concluded that
> the introduction of move-semantics and changes to the standard algorithms
> would
> allow us to write a proxy reference for the iterators in pointer containers so
> we can call
> sort() etc. in the usual manner.
I'm really like it.
but when?
right now we should use em as members anyway.

--
Pavel Chikulaev