🚀 go-pugleaf

matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>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?

In the APL language, the "<" operator, when used with two arrays of
matching size, returns an array of boolean values, not a single bool
(the results of comparisons on corresponding elements).  Similarly
for other relational operators.  The STL template declaration gives
*every* class type a set of relational operators that return bool.

This is a conflict that can only be worked around by never using any
STL header in code that implements or uses an "APLarray" class.
The STL approach basically mandates that the relational operators
*always* return bool, even for user-defined classes.  Now perhaps that
is reasonable, but it is a decision that should be thought about just
a bit.



-- 
-- Joe Buck 	<jbuck@synopsys.com>	(not speaking for Synopsys, Inc)
Anagrams for "information superhighway":	Enormous hairy pig with fan
						A rough whimper of insanity