220 12118 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ville Voutilainen Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: std::order -- what do you think? Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:20:55 +0300 Lines: 23 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <0ba9643b-7a18-4ab6-a8f7-caec2450c061@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1406737264 13005 80.91.229.3 (30 Jul 2014 16:21:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 16:21:04 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5JHI7A7ALRBZ5W4SPAKGQEFBVNVVY@isocpp.org Wed Jul 30 18:20:57 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-oi0-f70.google.com ([209.85.218.70]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XCWcb-0008E2-Ju for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 18:20:57 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f70.google.com with SMTP id u20sf6262405oif.1 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=vXzYIQwjMCFuYel9/8am9kTlM1z9bPEqr6cPCpFME9I=; b=lu3Q0sNrdLwmjU4iSKyQ6GUD7UMBckaKplnmlnwf7tmmPwLkpz9D2ttlFirXywEcCv /TcTf2h+9KXhf2q+uda+ey2jAsPpTmiHyMu3CxyMTYH1GE+JhheFuikBTGGRCCjG24q7 PiUfuXTiCbNlwjRdFoTbSFjAlJIiAdnTt+W2tErmwSMyC/HYQjeyX2O0WYTn24lofgDg l1J34/cpNKK1Gc+KTUl+XVn0VTphGDiJY09TAuTlJRjMGgwljxh9YK+WcwqqYEabwNRD YvU1IXLkYX9EX1KcEblT9zf47QIGWSh3x+fWbqh9J3w3XnA+RDsh9PRBoN5QDX1KX6ys GbXQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn1zEMG8uAVQZ26FPguINmqynEoL+ESH0PWgj/3dhan26YjK4JSC88MvXTHAiekUE2Vz8iI X-Received: by 10.50.43.168 with SMTP id x8mr11706827igl.4.1406737256289; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.48.132 with SMTP id o4ls608925qga.40.gmail; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.220.3.79 with SMTP id 15mr4157913vcm.63.1406737255465; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-qg0-x22b.google.com (mail-qg0-x22b.google.com [2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j7si4733570qaz.83.2014.07.30.09.20.55 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ville.voutilainen@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22b; Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id a108so1833613qge.2 for ; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.224.71.198 with SMTP id i6mr8614812qaj.76.1406737255287; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.224.31.137 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 09:20:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: 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:f8b0:400d:c04::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ville.voutilainen@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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:12118 Archived-At: On 30 July 2014 19:15, Tony V E wrote: > P.S. optional (and expected) should maybe still have <, as one of the stated > design goals is "to be as similar to T as possible". > If we don't want optional to have <, then let's just overload > std::less>. and not implement <, and be done with it. I'd be OK And after you're done with that, remember to do equal_to> as well. > Basically, we need to decide if "like T" is an attainable design goal (and > without overloaded operator . it isn't), and whether getting half-way there > is a benefit or a hindrance. Funny, it seems to me that LEWG has decided that a couple of times already. -- --- 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/. .