C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-26 13:52:23

On 26 August 2013 19:00, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The library's running into problems because < is unspecified on
> pointers that don't point to the same object. (C++14CD[expr.rel]p4)
> Naively, this restriction makes a bit of sense, since we can't give a
> particular answer for any two pointers, but it's causing problems for
> some generic library components. Specifically:
> std::map<T*> works because std::less has a special case for pointers.
> ([comparisons]p14)
> std::map<std::tuple<T*>> gives undefined behavior because
> std::less<tuple> uses tuple's operator<, which uses T*'s operator<.
> std::map<std::optional<T*>> goes back to defined behavior because we
> special-cased optional's operator< to use std::less:
> [optional.relops]p4

I have strong reasons to believe we'll see an NB comment proposing std::less
to be specialized for tuple<T*> and containers.

SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com