[boost] Re: [ptr_container] more operators?

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-23 15:44:44

"Pavel Chikulaev" <pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:d48n9s$b75$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| news:d48kcf$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?

not understood.

| > 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?

C++0x.

| right now we should use em as members anyway.

yes.

-Thorsten