Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-16 10:15:19
On 15 October 2013 18:14, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Nevin --
> Are you asking that operator< be a total order on std::deque<T>::iterator?
No, although the only sentence I can find in n3797 not requiring it today
is in iterator requirements in general 24.2.1p7: "The result of the
application of functions in the library to invalid ranges is undefined" and
assuming that operator< has to be implemented with a function so that the
assertion in table 111 that "< is a total ordering relation" only holds for
My goal is that for two objects l and r of type T, 'std::less<T>(l, r)',
'std::less<>(l, r)' and 'l < r' should never diverge, because anything else
makes usage expert-only.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com