1) Instead of "operator bool", use the unspecified-bool-type discussed elsewhere on this list; it's safer.
Yup.
ok, i changed it.
2) I'm not sure that the choice of the name is ideal. OTOH, I can't think of a better one...
lexicographic?
i dont bother about the name. if this is better i will change it.
3) I'd like to see a general solution for this problem using real (late-bound) function objects as well, if you know what I mean. This would be a lot harder, though, so maybe it should be put on a wish-list. Have you given any thought to this approach?
return compare.less(p1.x, p2.x) .greater(p1.y, p2.y) .call(f, p1.z, p2.z);
now this would be:
return compare (p1.x, p2.x, std::less <double> ())
(p1.y, p2.y, std::greater <double> ())
(p1.z, p2.z, f);or nearly the same:
return compare (p1.x, p2.x)
(p2.y, p1.y)
(p1.z, p2.z, f);if the name lexicographic is ok, i will put it in the sandbox. i assume the directory utility is the correct place.
jan
-- jan langer ... [EMAIL PROTECTED] "pi ist genau drei"
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
