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

Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail.com
Mon Aug 26 21:02:46 CEST 2013


On 26 August 2013 21:58, Nevin Liber <nevin at eviloverlord.com> wrote:

> On 26 August 2013 13:52, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> I have strong reasons to believe we'll see an NB comment proposing
>> std::less
>> to be specialized for tuple<T*> and containers.
>>
>
> What about tuple<T*&>?  I'm thinking about what is returned from std::tie,
> as one quick way to implement a comparison operator for a user defined type
> is to compare the result of std::tie called on the appropriate member
> variables.
>

I have strong reasons to believe references to pointers aren't covered by
the aforementioned NB comment, but I expect
the delegation head for that NB to nod approvingly if that case gets
covered by tuple.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/ub/attachments/20130826/f7ce86c3/attachment.html 


More information about the ub mailing list