<div dir="ltr">On 10 October 2013 02:36, Lawrence Crowl <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Lawrence@crowl.org" target="_blank">Lawrence@crowl.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 10/9/13, Jens Maurer <<a href="mailto:Jens.Maurer@gmx.net">Jens.Maurer@gmx.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Why should < reflect such virtual memory hackery at all?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>+1.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">The problem is that if you need to represent an object with more than<br></div>
one segment (as was necessary for arrays > 64 kB on x86) then<br>
requiring a total order within an array places a consistency requirement<br>
on computing a total order between arrays.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Didn't that issue already exist in C++98 (at least with respect to std::less)?<br></div></div>-- <br> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target="_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> (847) 691-1404
</div></div>