From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-22 17:22:37
On 7/22/06 8:28 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> would have to contort their expressions to avoid ">", "<=", and
>> ">=".) If there are no uses beside this shortcut, then the ordering
>> operator should be removed since the class's model doesn't need it.
>
> An ordering property is extremely useful outside of set/map, and it
> becomes part of the class' model. If you remove ordering, you change
> the model.
The "becomes part" sounds like the existence of an ordering property
justifies its own existence. We need to take a step back and look at this
type and what it's modeling from a higher perspective to avoid the circular
argument. What uses besides set/map do you envision for ordering operators?
And shouldn't _all_ the operators be defined then, not just "<"? (The docs
at <http://www.boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm> state that the full
set of ordering operators is deliberately omitted.)
-- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com