Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-17 00:27:36
On 16 October 2013 17:13, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]>
> > 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.
I'm not sure how to interpret that.
1. The current weasel words are good enough, even though it specifically
says that it only applies to specializations of pointer types, which void
2. std::less<void> isn't intended as a drop-in replacement for
3. Pointers, while historically not totally ordered, are practically so
for all systems in existence today, with the exception of the ivory tower
minds of the committee, so the point is moot.
Also, do you remember when we had this discussion? I've only found notes
for LWG Portland, but I thought we had talked about it since then.
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com