From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-24 13:00:51
From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> > No, it's never valid to have less<type> but not operator<. The only
> > exception is for pointers that don't point into the same array.
>
> A) That's the case here.
> B) Never with an exception? Good rules don't work this way.
We're stuck with the exception for other reasons but don't have to introduce
another.
> C) There are plenty of other cases where this holds true. A classic
> example is std::type_info. Basically any type that doesn't not have
> full ordering but *can* have consistent partial ordering.
But std::type_info is totally ordered. :-)
> > shared_ptr is a bit different from a raw pointer. It reperesents
> shared
> > ownership. I ask the legitimate question "do pa and pb share
> ownership?"
>
> I don't agree with this, but for some I guess it might be a valid
> view point. *IF* there's a compelling enough reason to need this
> however, it's still wrong to expose pn. Instead a same() method (or
> other more suitable name) should be exposed.
Did you read the example in my original message?
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.