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

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-22 17:22:37

On 7/22/06 8:28 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
>> would have to contort their expressions to avoid ">", "<=", and
>> ">=".)  If there are no uses beside this shortcut, then the ordering
>> operator should be removed since the class's model doesn't need it.
> 
> An ordering property is extremely useful outside of set/map, and it
> becomes part of the class' model.  If you remove ordering, you change
> the model.

The "becomes part" sounds like the existence of an ordering property
justifies its own existence.  We need to take a step back and look at this
type and what it's modeling from a higher perspective to avoid the circular
argument.  What uses besides set/map do you envision for ordering operators?
And shouldn't _all_ the operators be defined then, not just "<"?  (The docs
at <http://www.boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm> state that the full
set of ordering operators is deliberately omitted.)

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com