[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
Nevin Liber
nevin at eviloverlord.com
Wed Oct 16 16:54:02 CEST 2013
On 15 October 2013 18:10, Gabriel 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? This is not a
theoretical question, as there are committee members who recommend it over
std::less<T>, and book authors might start doing it as well.
--
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/20131016/0bb9c40b/attachment.html
More information about the ub
mailing list