David Abrahams wrote: > "Eric Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Ultimately, I do not believe any ordering scheme will provide >> meaningful, straightforward semantics. Assuming I am correct, I >> propose that the variant library offer your ordering scheme -- but >> only as an explicit comparison function, calling it variant_less. >> This would allow, for instance: >> >> std::set< my_variant, boost::variant_less<my_variant> > >> >> I'd appreciate feedback. > > I had the same thought myself, though I'd be inclined to spend a > little time searching for a better name than "less", since it doesn't > really mean that. Maybe "variant_before", using type_info::before as > a precedent?
If you want a second opinion, I'm in the "just provide operator== and operator<" camp. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
