Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-28 15:12:52

On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> I (strongly!) agree with the only if op<(T,T> is defined.
> (And famously believe op>=(optional<T>,optional<T>) should be based on
> op>=(T,T), instead of !op<(T,T) )
>

Just want to say that I think this is important and was really upset when
tuple, IMHO, got it wrong.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese