C++ Logo


Advanced search

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

From: Jason Merrill <jason_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:49:03 -0400
On 10/15/2013 06:39 PM, Nevin Liber wrote:
> The current rule of "calling operator< on pointers can invoke ub at the
> drop of a hat", while historically necessary, is a horrible, horrible rule.

Where is this rule? What I see in the current WP is

"Otherwise, the result of each of the operators is unspecified."

And unspecified is significantly different from undefined.


Received on 2013-10-17 00:00:33