🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <404gjm$bhu@mujibur.inmind.com> mfinney@inmind.com writes:

> Interesting example -- and one I had not (yet) considered.  But, of
> course, it is worse than the templated operators are useless.  They
> actively conflict with the correct template definitions.
> 
> BTW, instead of using x @ y to mean non-comparable, I use x  >< y where the
> >< is intended to overlap.  It has the advantage of using the same characters
> as <> so no new symbols are required (I also want to reserve @ for some other
> things, but that is not really relevant here).
> 
> I haven't heard from Koenig or anyone from the the standard on this yet.  I
> hope it isn't too late to get a correction into the standard.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see anything in the standard
that's in need of correction.  Yes, there's a template definition of
other comparison operators in terms of operator< and operator==, and
yes, that definition is incorrect for some types.  But isn't that what
template specialization is for?  If you have some type Foo for which
the default definitions are wrong, then you can just define
operator>(Foo, Foo) and be done with it.

Is there really any problem here that template specialization doesn't
already solve?
-- 
  Matt Austern                             He showed his lower teeth.  "We 
  matt@physics.berkeley.edu                all have flaws," he said, "and 
  http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt             mine is being wicked."