Frédéric Bron wrote:
what about: is_less_than_comparable and has_operator_less_than first check for existance and bool compliance, second check for existence only
Sounds very good to me. has_operator_less_than or has_less_than_operator?
I agree that splitting those is useful. has_operator_less_than is more consistent with C++ syntax: operator <. If we (can) add functionality to deduce the operator's return type, then I think you'd need something like result_of_operator_less_than<T,U>::type. Given that, one can check it against void, bool, tribool, or anything else of interest. _____ Rob Stewart robert.stewart@sig.com Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer; Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.