
Boost : 
Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Algorithm design question
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 20111102 06:25:23
Andrew Sutton wrote:
> >> But I'm not requiring both sides to be the same  only related.
> >
> > I'm not sure how you're doing that. I thought that this was about using
> > the
> > EqualityComparable standard requirement, which does require the two
> > sides of
> > == to be of the same type, and == to be an equivalence relation.
>
> The standard does not say that about EqualityComparable. 17.6.3.1
> [utility.arg.requirements] only says that a == b is convertible to
> bool and is an equivalence relation.
17.6.3.1? It's in 20.1.1 [lib.equalitycomparable] in C++03 and in 20.2.1
[utility.arg.requirements] in N3225. In C++03, the preceding text states:
In Table 28, T is a type to be supplied by a C + + program instantiating a
template, a, b and c are values of type T.
In N3225, the text states that
In these tables, T is an object or reference type to be supplied by a C++
program instantiating a template; a, b, and c are values of type (possibly
const) T; s and t are modifiable lvalues of type T; u denotes an identifier;
rv is an rvalue of type T; and v is an lvalue of type (possibly const) T or
an rvalue of type const T.
It makes sense, too; the table describes what it means for T to be
EqualityComparable. What would be EqualityComparable if a, b and c were
arbitrary?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk