C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 10:22:54 -0500
Christopher Jefferson <chris_at_[hidden]> writes:

| On 16 October 2013 00:14, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]> wrote:
| > Nevin --
| > Are you asking that operator< be a total order on std::deque<T>::iterator?
| >
| On a practical note, I believe this would arise naturally, if
| operator< was a total order on pointers.

Only if you believe that the standard mandates a specific representation
of std::deque<T>::iterator that forces all pointers, or that the
repreentations in the source code you have access to must be the one
every implementation must use. The standards requirements are axiomatic
and there are several models in the wild that satisfy them; and we do
have a proof of existence that the same implementation can ship two
different models.

-- Gaby

Received on 2013-10-17 17:23:10