From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-12-17 15:05:03
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 12:39 AM Rainer Deyke via Boost <
> On 16.12.19 23:19, Zach Laine via Boost wrote:
> > - operators < and == can be provided, since the requirements of these
> >> functions already suggest a default implementation. The user can still
> >> override the provided implementation if a more efficient implementation
> >> is possible. If it is for some reason desirable to create a container
> >> without operator <, an additional policy argument could be added to
> >> container_interface.
> > These are all provided; I think you just missed them.
> operator== is listed in Table 1.3, and in the User-Defined column of
> Table 1.4. The note in Table 1.8 also says that operator== is required
> to be user-defined. So if the library provides it, then the
> documentation does not reflect this.
Ah, I see. Fortunately, that's only a doc problem. For a container C with
value_type T, if operator==(T, T) is defined, then operator==(C, C) is
defined. Similarly, if operator<(T, T) is defined, you get operator<(C, C)
If you provide a custom operator<(C, C), or use the one defined via
operator<(T, T) -> operator<(C, C), you get all the other relational
operators for C. This was communicated poorly. I'll fix that.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk