🚀 go-pugleaf

In <407les$fjs@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, maxtal@Physics.usyd.edu.au (John Max Skaller) writes:
>In article <3vqnqf$kst@hardcopy.ny.jpmorgan.com>,
>Joe Borkoles  <jborkole@jpmorgan.com> wrote:
>	I simply deleted the templates from the STL files.
>No part of the HP STL implementation I have used so far uses
>these templates -- but I may have missed something.

The draft standard does not require that headers be files or
editable in any way.  Not to mention that is a constance pain
in the maintenance area.

>	I dislike the defaulting to the total order

The problem is that such defaulting is only done for "convenience".  To
avoid requiring the other operators to be defined by providing a default
implmentation -- that unfortunately can conflict with other implementations.
It is not even that much of a convenience.

> , but C++
>doesn't contain sufficient functionality to declare, on a class
>by class basis, that some members (friends) should be defined based on
>a model. Macros still remain the simplest way to do this. :-(
>Global defaults is a very second rate solution, but arguably
>better than macros :-)

I don't see where this is a problem solved by templates vs. macros
at all.  It is not a weakness in the template system, merely an
incorrect semantic assumption on the parts of the authors of STL.

Michael Lee Finney