From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-09 10:58:52
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> Don't you really want a function template which compares arbitrary
> shared_ptr<T>, shared_ptr<U> by comparing the count objects, instead?
The current ==, != operators compare get(); there wasn't a particularly
strong reason to break backward compatibility by making them compare the
count.
> I don't think so. The above operator doesn't allow const_/non-const_
> iterator interoperability. Or are you suggesting that simply *adding* this
> definition is enough to avoid the problem. That would make plenty of
sense.
Yes, exactly.