Peter Dimov wrote: [snip] > Provide operator<. Wait six months. Collect feedback. If there is evidence > that operator< is evil, remove it and document why it is not supplied.
OK, I'm willing to go along with this. I'll probably also include operator==, with a similar plan for future evaluation. Early evidence that operator< is evil though may be demonstrated in the following: boost::variant<int, double> var(3.0); ... if (var <= 3) // false ... While the obvious objection is "but operator< isn't meant for variant-nonvariant comparison," I don't see how to prevent it since variant has implicit constructors. Ideas? Thanks, Eric _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost