[boost] Re: compare

[Jan Langer]

Gennaro Prota wrote:
Ok. This is my last post in this thread. Let me just add that your
conversion function to bool, together with the default constructor you
provide, lets the user take the "result of the comparison" without
actually doing any call to operator().
yes. but i cant see a problem with that. it is just as doing 
lexicographic_compare with two empty sequences.

class compare
{
public:
    enum result { minus, equiv, plus };
private:
    class R {
[...]
>        operator result() const { return v_; }
    };

    mutable R result_;
[...]
};
ok. assuming that we want to convey all three states to the public. and 
i want the bool-conversion semantik to be the same. why do you think an 
implicit conversion to result is the right way?

i can also think of an function
        result get_result () const { return v_; }
or three single functions for each state
        bool minus () const;
        bool plus () const;
        bool equiv () const;
another idea would be to make it two classes compare and compare_3way. 
one with the bool conversion and one with the implicit operator result.

jan

--
jan langer ... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"pi ist genau drei"
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost