AMDG Stewart, Robert wrote:
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.
It's easier to test the result of operator< (for example to determine whether it is convertible to bool than it is to deduce the return type.) In Christ, Steven Watanabe