Re: [boost] Please don't define a fake"operator<"just for orderedcontainers

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-15 09:59:07

Sean Parent wrote:

>>> For pair<shared_ptr<>, int> - what makes shared_ptr special?
>>
>> Why should it be special? If a type K is ordered, pair<K, int>
>> should also
>> be.

> That isn't true for T*. I contend that either both should have
> operator < () defined or neither. I believe for shared_ptr is is
> probably best to try to be consistent with T* then to lobby to get T*
> changed.

I think that you either severely underestimate the amount of lobbying 
required to pass a change to the C subset of the C++ core language, or have 
an unique sense of humor. :-)