220 4243 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Fixing Standard Library relational operators (was: Re: optional Rev.4 (N3672): What was the rationale to remove !=, >=, ...) Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 21:12:40 +0300 Lines: 70 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <5f236e41-0f5f-4288-a80f-9eadb5168c38@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013a1978f63bf204dbd44b62 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367604766 10940 80.91.229.3 (3 May 2013 18:12:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 18:12:46 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBG74R6GAKGQEFJ2WPDA@isocpp.org Fri May 03 20:12:46 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f200.google.com ([209.85.214.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UYKTN-0006CI-4w for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 20:12:45 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f200.google.com with SMTP id v19sf9434045obq.3 for ; Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=Qfub2fMrZV/5hVp6LFWcAPeu42sem++/fw62YeUg5sY=; b=trUp6eZ9mN658rtC8aTzNR+6uIP+g61G8cA3rlONHGyNcFzb+hmPDQtF1Qv3Zm9bKF gf8zLDwY9AWmf9pa4fBgeEfhrlGuIwsNNGUjHLcPubeTUkdjkV4y46YisvkYqgNkkQZ0 lW4YgYVmfDdk5D0zAl7r6InLhzzwzjPSr8Yf9fbKoIG/asN72jqx234kgxsgoJaiKlhX 5EDFA+JwRjbdbuJhkyGC17mkamBJQkgkt3k1ldbzS8/RcDzFRSMVxoQlDNakGq/COj5A PwEtphs2UOD76Jx11Ab/NNwWJ90ZnY+9xpqBjMwCCMkw70Hoe96QFd74ABwdqLGfm/ai X-Received: by 10.182.220.67 with SMTP id pu3mr9595249obc.49.1367604764038; Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.182.99.131 with SMTP id eq3ls319217obb.82.gmail; Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.60.141.226 with SMTP id rr2mr3239951oeb.35.1367604761150; Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-ob0-x22f.google.com (mail-ob0-x22f.google.com [2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id og1si2904460obb.143.2013.05.03.11.12.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f; Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f175.google.com with SMTP id wd20so531793obb.6 for ; Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.120.134 with SMTP id lc6mr3262595obb.34.1367604760818; Fri, 03 May 2013 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.76.10.130 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 11:12:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5f236e41-0f5f-4288-a80f-9eadb5168c38@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: ville.voutilainen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:4243 Archived-At: --089e013a1978f63bf204dbd44b62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 3 May 2013 20:55, Marc wrote: > > But why should I, as someone using a non total order, have to specialize > anything? If the underlying type has operator>, then optional should use it > for >. If it doesn't, then optional shouldn't either. If you are using > rel_ops with T, you can just as well use rel_ops with optional. > > > > Currently tuple, pair and containers don't do that. It would be reasonable to be consistent in that regard with optional, and consider further changes separately afterwards. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en. --089e013a1978f63bf204dbd44b62 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



On 3 May 2013 20:55, Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> wrote:

But why should I, as someone using = a non total order, have to specialize anything? If the underlying type has = operator>, then optional should use it for >. If it doesn't, then= optional shouldn't either. If=A0 you are using rel_ops with T, you can= just as well use rel_ops with optional<T>.




Currently tuple, pair = and containers don't do that. It would be reasonable to be consistent i= n that regard
with optional, and consider further changes separately aft= erwards.

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
--089e013a1978f63bf204dbd44b62-- .