Subject: Re: [boost] review request: addition to type_traits library of is_less_comparable<T, U> and others
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-10-09 19:27:56
Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Frédéric Bron wrote:
>>> what about:
>>> is_less_than_comparable and has_operator_less_than
>>> first check for existance and bool compliance, second check
>>> for existence only
>> Sounds very good to me.
>> has_operator_less_than or has_less_than_operator?
> I agree that splitting those is useful. has_operator_less_than is more consistent with C++ syntax: operator <.
> If we (can) add functionality to deduce the operator's return type, then I think you'd need something like result_of_operator_less_than<T,U>::type. Given that, one can check it against void, bool, tribool, or anything else of interest.
It's easier to test the result of operator< (for example to determine
whether it is convertible to bool than it is to deduce 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