David Abrahams wrote: > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> 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?
Right. When there is one and only one strict weak ordering (equality) for a type, not using operator< and operator== because some users might have different expectations is misguided. It is pretty clear what set<variant> or find(first, last, v) is supposed to do; variant_less or variant_equal is "required boilerplate" as Howard says. :-) _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
