Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Algorithm design question
From: Andrew Sutton (asutton.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-31 10:50:26
> None of this has anything to do with the fact that you want to require
> operator== to be an equivalence relation, and it doesn't have to be.
Realistically though, when is == not (at least) an equivalence
relation? Should we expect people to start overloading == to mean <?
Seriously, what's the real harm in more strongly connecting syntax to semantics?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk