Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-16 17:13:52
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 16 October 2013 16:51, Christopher Jefferson <chris_at_[hidden]>
>> 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>.
IIRC, Stephan intentionally left the weasel-words out of
std::less<void>, and we've discussed that choice before and generally
found it reasonable.
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com