<div dir="ltr">On 17 October 2013 03:38, Peter Sommerlad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:peter.sommerlad@hsr.ch" target="_blank">peter.sommerlad@hsr.ch</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">Hi, just to throw in my 0.02 CHF:<br>
<div class="im">On 17.10.2013, at 07:27, Nevin Liber <<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br><br>
</div>Well, I dream the future with non-uniform memory architectures might make that argument wrong again. We might have "pointers" that differ substantially, depending if the memory address resides in RAM "directly" attached to a CPU or on a different CPU or on a GPU. And comparing such pointers wildly might not be the thing you should be allowed to do.<br>
<br>
Just remember, technology development often goes in circles, e.g., we get electric cars again after 100+ years, we are reinventing parallel programming (a lot of work from the 70s/80s gets rediscovered), etc.<br></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>I understand the fear argument, because (so far) that is the only argument being made for not changing the standard to match existing practice.<br></div><div><br></div><div>But, even if segmented architectures, unlikely though it is, do come back, the ordering problem still has to be addressed, as std::less<T*> is required to totally order pointers. I just want operator< to be an alternate spelling for that property.<br>
<br>Why should everyone else pretend to suffer (and I do mean pretend, because outside of a small contingent of the committee, people already assume that pointers are totally ordered with respect to operator<) to meet the theoretical needs of some currently non-existent architecture?<br>
-- <br></div></div> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target="_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> (847) 691-1404
</div></div>