[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
Nevin Liber
nevin at eviloverlord.com
Thu Oct 17 00:03:37 CEST 2013
On 16 October 2013 16:51, Christopher Jefferson <chris at bubblescope.net>wrote:
>
>
> Oh, I did not realise that. I assume those weasel words are:
>
> 20.10.5: 14 For templates greater, less, greater_equal, and
> less_equal, the specializations for any pointer type yield a total
> order, even if the built-in operators <, >, <=, >= do not.
>
> I did not think that applied for the std::less<void> specialisation,
> but I can imagine how you could read that it did.
>
Hmmm... I think you are right... although I thought the intention was it
works for less<void>.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin at eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/ub/attachments/20131016/b85ac5fb/attachment-0001.html
More information about the ub
mailing list