[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
Nevin Liber
nevin at eviloverlord.com
Thu Oct 10 16:31:09 CEST 2013
On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <Lawrence at crowl.org> wrote:
> On 10/9/13, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer at 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 at eviloverlord.com> (847) 691-1404
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/ub/attachments/20131010/b10b4976/attachment.html
More information about the ub
mailing list