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

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-30 20:19:26

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 1:58 AM, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Why? What makes the string default ordering "reasonable" and complex or
> variant not? There are a lot of ways to order strings that might even be
> more sensible in more cases than the current default (I.E. having different

I think this kind of reasoning isn't very fruitful.
Optional is not a string, string is not an optional. One having
operator< does not imply the other should have it to.