From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-11 10:54:20
Guillaume Melquiond wrote:
> Back to the topic of operator< for smart_ptr, I think it was a mistake
> for the STL to use std::less as the default parameter for ordered
> containers. It would have been better to define some kind of
> total_order template class (that would have defaulted to being
> std::less).
I agree that the inclusion of a separate "set/map order" relation in the
standard library (that is defined for all standard value types) would have
made the correct choice obvious.