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

Gabriel Dos Reis gdr at axiomatics.org
Wed Oct 16 17:37:12 CEST 2013


Nevin Liber <nevin at eviloverlord.com> writes:

| On 16 October 2013 10:06, Gabriel s too subtle for even most committee members,
| let alone mere mortals, to get right.Dos Reis <gdr at microsoft.com> wrote:
| 
| 
|     |       I would not have trouble telling people (especially notices):
|     "Ignore expect
|     | talks
|     |       about operator< on pointers.  Prefer std::less<T>, unless you meant
|     a
|     | relationship
|     |       between objects pointed to, in which use operator<.  Mean what you
|     say
|     | and say
|     |       what you mean."
|     |
|     |
|     |
|     | So what about std::less<void>?  Should people be using it?
| 
|     What is wrong about it?
| 
| 
| It requires operator<.  If people specialize std::less<T> instead adding an
| operator<, it won't work.

That is an issue with the definition of std::less<>, not necessarily
with operator< on pointers.

| It would be surprising that:
| 
| set<T, less<T>> works, but
| set<T, less<>> does not.

Make T = std::less<std::complex<MyFloat>> and instantiate the argument :-)

| 
| One of the two motivations for this in n3421 is to not require that the
| argument type in a comparator functor be explicitly specified, but that assumes
| there is an operator< for the type, or possible compiler magic for pointer
| comparisons because of the ub issue.


More information about the ub mailing list