"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
But, IIUC, if operator< is not provided, you'd oppose a std::less specialization, right? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
