Re: [boost] fake "operator<"

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-11 10:54:20

Guillaume Melquiond wrote:

> Back to the topic of operator< for smart_ptr, I think it was a mistake
> for the STL to use std::less as the default parameter for ordered
> containers. It would have been better to define some kind of
> total_order template class (that would have defaulted to being
> std::less).

I agree that the inclusion of a separate "set/map order" relation in the 
standard library (that is defined for all standard value types) would have 
made the correct choice obvious.