> > Yes, I agree about the name change. Sorry if the previous post seemed a > bit abrupt, I just dashed it off while waiting for a compile and it didn't > come out exactly as I intended. I was just trying to make the point that a > general comparison function which "does the right thing" is actually a > more basic concept than a tuple library, so that if one were to be > implemented in terms of the other, the tuple library should use the > comparison function (Although this is just speaking hypothetically, I am > not suggesting changing the tuple library).
It wouldn't fit with the current implementation of tuples as cons lists. Comparisons are now defined as: comapre heads, recurse to tails if needed. To use these strict_weak_ordering functions, we would first need to unpack the tuple into distinct argument slots. /Jaakko _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
