From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-11 01:47:12
Daryle Walker wrote:
> If you are modeling data that has a standardized order, then it's OK
> to define (all) the ordering operators. If the order is something
> that you made up, and doesn't naturally flow with the model, then
> leave it out as a separate function (object). Don't shove in an
> ordering scheme via operators, especially if there more than one way
> to do it.
The unspecified strict weak ordering defined by the operator< overload is
independent from shared_ptr's template parameter. You say that there are
more than one way to do it. Can you come up with another way? Keep in mind,
your ordering must be well defined even for shared_ptr<void> objects.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk