From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-26 06:18:40
From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> > > 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. :-)
>
> I used the wrong terminology here. I should have said strict-weak
> ordered. The point still stands.
Unfortunately the point does not stand.
std::type_info is not partially ordered; it provides neither operator< nor
std::less; and it cannot be put in standard containers.
Try to provide another example of a type that should have std::less but not
operator<, having in mind 20.3.3/5 and 17.4.3.1/1.
> > Did you read the example in my original message?
>
> Yes, I did.
OK. Do you agree that it is a real problem? How would you solve it? (I mean
the problem with serializing a shared_ptr.)
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.