C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?

From: Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:02:46 +0300
On 26 August 2013 21:58, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 26 August 2013 13:52, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>> I have strong reasons to believe we'll see an NB comment proposing
>> std::less
>> to be specialized for tuple<T*> and containers.
> What about tuple<T*&>? I'm thinking about what is returned from std::tie,
> as one quick way to implement a comparison operator for a user defined type
> is to compare the result of std::tie called on the appropriate member
> variables.

I have strong reasons to believe references to pointers aren't covered by
the aforementioned NB comment, but I expect
the delegation head for that NB to nod approvingly if that case gets
covered by tuple.

Received on 2013-08-26 21:02:47