Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-16 17:03:37
On 16 October 2013 16:51, Christopher Jefferson <chris_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> Oh, I did not realise that. I assume those weasel words are:
> 20.10.5: 14 For templates greater, less, greater_equal, and
> less_equal, the specializations for any pointer type yield a total
> order, even if the built-in operators <, >, <=, >= do not.
> I did not think that applied for the std::less<void> specialisation,
> but I can imagine how you could read that it did.
Hmmm... I think you are right... although I thought the intention was it
works for less<void>.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com