From: "Iain K.Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Given the above, I can't see the utility of defining rel-ops with container > semantics.
I did not say that there is utility in the "equivalence" semantics (although they do make specifying and testing postconditions easier.) I am saying that these are the only semantics that make sense, if comparisons are supported at all. > Particularly as if opt1 == opt2 returns false you have no idea > if it is because there is a value mis-match or a state mis-match. This is how equivalence works. It doesn't tell you anything about opt1 or opt2, it only tells you whether the two are equivalent, i.e. whether opt2 can be substituted for opt1 in an expression with the end result being the same. (For any type.) > I can see the logic in your argument, but given that optional is neither > "fish nor fowl" ( its not a smart pointer, its not a container, and its not > just a value ), I would rather go for the semantics that offer most utility. That's fine. State comparisons offer no utility. ;-) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
