<div dir="ltr">On 26 August 2013 11:00, Jeffrey Yasskin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jyasskin@google.com" target="_blank">jyasskin@google.com</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"><br>
Could someone explain why we need to allow operator<(T*) to be a non-order?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It comes from C. I believe it comes from the days of segmented architectures.<br><br></div><div>I do not know of any modern machines that have such architectures and have C++11 compilers for them. Whenever it comes up for discussion on various reflectors, no one has mentioned one either. I for one would like to see this restriction go away.<br>
<br></div><div>Armchair thought: maybe we should propose a total ordering for pointers (for C++17 at this point) and see if anyone objects?<br><br><br></div><div>All that being said, I believe Library is inconsistent in its use of operator< vs. std::less<T>, and that needs to be addressed separately. Pointers are the current poster child for the issue but user code might be specializing std::less as well.<br>
</div></div>-- <br> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target="_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> (847) 691-1404
</div></div>