Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-16 10:50:59
Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> writes:
| On 16 October 2013 10:37, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| | It would be surprising that:
| | set<T, less<T>> works, but
| | set<T, less<>> does not.
| Make T = std::less<std::complex<MyFloat>> and instantiate the argument :-)
| Neither operator< nor less<complex> is defined by the standard.
Exactly! I said std::less<std::complex<MyFloat>>, which has always been
supposed to be user-provided, when defined. Since C++98. And codes
like that exist. The relation with your argument is that those C++98
codes will continue to work today with C++11, while the version with
less<void> will fail. Miresably.
Short version: the argument of the definition of less<T> vs. less<void>
Now, I've to dash to work; will your replies later.
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com