Subject: Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-17 09:37:22
Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> writes:
| 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. Â The current weasel words are good enough, even though it specifically says
| that it only applies to specializations of pointer types, which void clearly
| 2. Â std::less<void> isn't intended as a drop-in replacement for std::less<T*>.
| 3. Â 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.
Do you believe that it is appropriate for the "ivory tower minds on the
committee" to refer to those who dismiss their points as "narrow minded"
when they explaining their points of view? Personally, I do not believe
it is; just as I don't think what you said is appropriate, but I would
like to have your opinion.
SG12 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com