From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-10 13:35:55
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > Thus, all_of({1, 2, 3}) < any_of({3, 4}) means:
> >
> > 1 < 3: true
> > 2 < 3: true
> > 3 < 3: false
> > 1 < 4: true
> > 2 < 4: true
> > 3 < 4: true
> > result: true
> >
> > But, each_of({1, 2, 3}) < any_of({3, 4}) means:
> >
> > 1 < 3: true
> > 2 < 3: true
> > 3 < 3: false
> > 3 < 4: true
> > result: true
>
> IMO that's terribly confusing. The first one should be
>
> all_of({1, 2, 3}) < one_of({3, 4})
>
> And the second one should be
>
> all_of({1, 2, 3}) < any_of({3, 4})
Hmmmm. That is what I'm after, isn't it. Fine: we should
forget about each_of. Users simply need to formulate the
expression correctly with the other operations.
I'll have to look at the implementation to ensure we get that
behavior when those types are mixed.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;