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

Ville Voutilainen ville.voutilainen at gmail.com
Wed Oct 16 17:50:57 CEST 2013


On 16 October 2013 18:46, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at axiomatics.org> wrote:

>
> |     My own personal view (not that of chair) is that if
> std::less<T>(l,r) and
> |     "l < r" are
> |     both defined, then they should yield the same answer.
> |
> |
> | Which fails for pointers.
>
> "fails" in which sense?  It is certainly true in the current standards
> these expressions are both defined when 'l' and 'r' are related
> addresses (relative to the same object), which was exactly my point.
>
>
>
Fails in the sense that less<int*>(l, r) and l<r do not necessarily yield
the
same answer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/ub/attachments/20131016/f31019a7/attachment.html 


More information about the ub mailing list