On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 08:02:12AM -0400, rgheck wrote: > I had a similar concern. Just changing the semantics of operator== seems > dangerous. But another option would be, short term, to replace it by two > methods, get things working again, and then make one of them back into > operator==.
I have no problems with two "named" functions wih names describing what they do exactly instead of trying to find proper semantics for operator==() Andre'
