15 Jul
2006
15 Jul
'06
1:59 p.m.
Sean Parent wrote:
For pair<shared_ptr<>, int> - what makes shared_ptr special?
Why should it be special? If a type K is ordered, pair<K, int> should also be.
That isn't true for T*. I contend that either both should have operator < () defined or neither. I believe for shared_ptr is is probably best to try to be consistent with T* then to lobby to get T* changed.
I think that you either severely underestimate the amount of lobbying required to pass a change to the C subset of the C++ core language, or have an unique sense of humor. :-)