220 4257 <4b4cd84b-e8e0-4e81-b8ee-89d6f0912639@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: DeadMG 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 13:35:07 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 56 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <4b4cd84b-e8e0-4e81-b8ee-89d6f0912639@isocpp.org> References: <5f236e41-0f5f-4288-a80f-9eadb5168c38@isocpp.org> <21f24461-2f6a-42b4-93c9-76702aa8dedc@isocpp.org> <9d015df9-9711-4d69-ae40-7204bfb17880@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_273_8662731.1367613307228" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1367613314 32517 80.91.229.3 (3 May 2013 20:35:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 20:35:14 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDFMT44JSEMBB7F6SCGAKGQEQ3DZT5A@isocpp.org Fri May 03 22:35:14 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ve0-f199.google.com ([209.85.128.199]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UYMhB-0007VQ-Qs for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 22:35:09 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-ve0-f199.google.com with SMTP id m1sf3652590ves.10 for ; Fri, 03 May 2013 13:35:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:date:from:to:message-id :in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=L0i8vRn/L300INXmRM+k7h5E0bDMgEA0m+rwAZ4hY2c=; b=SAiQ/hPHmEL5Z70UnnUjXwFhTm6IaUDlMDmW6fVSJCByO/5dKItahNjzuGVWSf1pBd 5EqUNNPjrcJ9jr15c/1J3fnC5sApL1xdkwbUIM/T1bi8T73R7XJTGP3ibpNM8lBCB4OI Ukj1BDbc/1uZnOwpEhbfNZW5NJkOEHf3JysWBxbD4P5BUzsAMIwN00KTSgM77bXhveN3 6mP5YCWI0xuKWNsrno4YejxDqkomIHEM85J63HcHhkRqft6QSxsOiNWXTnAEigRv20/g SfVWULT5o0BV8CrE9qH0QZVHnY8zrydYBVfdt/OeUPTrVQEOzQYOcz9SCNPn2aXAlWnj 3LJA== X-Received: by 10.236.181.234 with SMTP id l70mr9110281yhm.53.1367613308932; Fri, 03 May 2013 13:35:08 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.71.166 with SMTP id w6ls2011285qeu.14.gmail; Fri, 03 May 2013 13:35:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.85.65 with SMTP id f1mr1160287qez.36.1367613307751; Fri, 03 May 2013 13:35:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: wolfeinstein@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:4257 Archived-At: ------=_Part_273_8662731.1367613307228 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Only because the Committee could not agree. I am arguing that it *should* be consistent with T. And I've yet to hear an explanation why it shouldn't be consistent with > tuple. Because then it is inconsistent with T, which is a bigger problem than being inconsistent with tuple. Just because tuple is currently broken in this regard does not mean that optional should be. -- --- 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. ------=_Part_273_8662731.1367613307228 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Only because the Committee could not agree. I am arguing that it *should* b= e consistent with T.

And I'= ve yet to hear an explanation why it shouldn't be consistent with tuple.

Because then it is inconsistent with T, which= is a bigger problem than being inconsistent with tuple. Just because tuple= is currently broken in this regard does not mean that optional should be.&= nbsp;

--
 
---
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.
 
 
------=_Part_273_8662731.1367613307228-- .