On 7/11/06 1:47 AM, "Emil Dotchevski" <emildotchevski@hotmail.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker wrote:
[snipped] If you are modeling data that has a standardized order, then it's OK to define (all) the ordering operators. If the order is something that you made up, and doesn't naturally flow with the model, then leave it out as a separate function (object). Don't shove in an ordering scheme via operators, especially if there more than one way to do it[1].
The unspecified strict weak ordering defined by the operator< overload is independent from shared_ptr's template parameter. You say that there are more than one way to do it. Can you come up with another way? Keep in mind, your ordering must be well defined even for shared_ptr<void> objects.
The possibility of multiple definitions was posed as a weakness of the fake operator "<" technique in general, not of shared pointers in particular. (If all the potential definitions are unnatural, then why are you blessing one?) It shouldn't be construed as a challenge to find at least two definitions. The existence of exactly one unnatural, yet consistent, ordering doesn't validate the technique. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com