Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:19:09 -0500
Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> writes:
| But, even if segmented architectures, unlikely though it is, do come back, the
| ordering problem still has to be addressed, as std::less<T*> is required to
| totally order pointers. I just want operator< to be an alternate spelling for
| that property.
I will repeat this again: std::less<T*> is absolutely not a problem,
because this
return intptr_t(p) < intptr_t(q);
is valid and portable definition that requires no other special handling.
-- Gaby
| But, even if segmented architectures, unlikely though it is, do come back, the
| ordering problem still has to be addressed, as std::less<T*> is required to
| totally order pointers. I just want operator< to be an alternate spelling for
| that property.
I will repeat this again: std::less<T*> is absolutely not a problem,
because this
return intptr_t(p) < intptr_t(q);
is valid and portable definition that requires no other special handling.
-- Gaby
Received on 2013-10-17 17:19:10