«

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:22:54 -0400, Davis King wrote:

> Why aren't the templates in std::rel_ops implemented like
> template <typename A, typename B> bool operator> (const A& a, const B&
> b) { return b < a; }
> ?
> The reason I'm asking is that I would like to create just such a
> template but since it isn't in std::rel_ops I worry that there is some
> reason why that's a bad idea in the first place. I have no idea why it
> would be a problem though.

Because it would be illegal to do something like this:

struct foo { };

int a;
foo f;

a < f;

-Dhruv.

Dhruv wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:22:54 -0400, Davis King wrote:
>
> > Why aren't the templates in std::rel_ops implemented like
> > template <typename A, typename B> bool operator> (const A& a, const B&
> > b) { return b < a; }
> > ?
> > The reason I'm asking is that I would like to create just such a
> > template but since it isn't in std::rel_ops I worry that there is some
> > reason why that's a bad idea in the first place. I have no idea why it
> > would be a problem though.
>
> Because it would be illegal to do something like this:
>
> struct foo { };
>
> int a;
> foo f;
>
> a < f;

What do you mean? That shouldn't compile anyways since there is no function
which defines operator< for an int and a foo right?
Having the above templated operator < doesn't change that.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 07:36:17 -0400, Davis King wrote:

[snip]......

>> Because it would be illegal to do something like this:
>>
>> struct foo { };
>>
>> int a;
>> foo f;
>>
>> a < f;
>
> What do you mean? That shouldn't compile anyways since there is no function
> which defines operator< for an int and a foo right?
> Having the above templated operator < doesn't change that.

What I'm saying is that it would be stupid to compare if a lion is less
than a tiger. Ok, is one lion less than another would be saner, then
again, we have to defne what attribute of the lion we want to compare,
height, weight, age, etc...

-Dhruv.