From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-10 20:15:53
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of me22
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 5:07 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Please don't define a fake "operator <"
> On 7/10/06, Sohail Somani <s.somani_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Isn't shared_ptr<T> is supposed to be like T* which has ordering? In
> > this case, it's a non-issue no?
> My understanding is that < is only well-defined for pointers into the
> same array and that < between to arbitrary pointers is otherwise some
> sort of UB.
> It's less<T*> that provides a full ordering for arbitrary T*s. (By
> specialising std::less.)
Sorry for the double email, but I guess with this information atleast we
can verify that operator < is using less?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk