On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence@crowl.org> wrote:
On 10/9/13, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net> wrote:

> Why should < reflect such virtual memory hackery at all?

+1.
 
The problem is that if you need to represent an object with more than
one segment (as was necessary for arrays > 64 kB on x86) then
requiring a total order within an array places a consistency requirement
on computing a total order between arrays.

Didn't that issue already exist in C++98 (at least with respect to std::less)?
--
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com>  (847) 691-1404