Subject: Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library of is_less_comparable<T, U> and others
From: Jeffrey Hellrung (jhellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-08 13:14:04
Andrey Semashev wrote:
> FrÃ©dÃ©ric Bron wrote:
>> I would like to propose to your review the following addition to the
>> type_traits library (at
>> and http://dl.free.fr/tK0BwIzYy).
> Is it reasonable to additionally verify the returned type? IMO, such
> kind of traits should not make assumptions about the operators meaning,
> they should merely show whether the comparison expression is valid. Thus
> there also should not be a fails-to-compile case.
+1; perhaps there should be a 3rd template parameter, defaulted to bool
to preserve the current semantics, which the user may specify as void to
ignore the return type...?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk