Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-10 09:31:09
On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 10/9/13, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Why should < reflect such virtual memory hackery at all?
> The problem is that if you need to represent an object with more than
> one segment (as was necessary for arrays > 64 kB on x86) then
> requiring a total order within an array places a consistency requirement
> on computing a total order between arrays.
Didn't that issue already exist in C++98 (at least with respect to
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com