From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-18 18:29:26
On 7/11/06 11:51 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> "Philippe Vaucher" <philippe.vaucher_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> How do you make a std::set of structs, pairs, or tuples?
>> Maybe it was already said (didn't read the whole thread), but I thought I'd
>> add my 0.02$.
>> I think we should not define meaningless operator< for the structs/whatever,
>> and let the user define one if he wants to use those structs in a set.
> That would be exceedingly inconvenient. Having a builtin operator<
> for tuples is a huge win for users.
But should a convenient lie (providing fake operators "<" to use in sets &
maps) trump an inconvenient truth (not providing such operators for types
that model an unordered concept)? Convenient lies can suddenly turn
inconvenient at the worst times....
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com