[ub] Justification for < not being a total order on pointers?
Nevin Liber
nevin at eviloverlord.com
Wed Oct 16 17:55:32 CEST 2013
On 16 October 2013 10:53, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at axiomatics.org> wrote:
> Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen at gmail.com> writes:
>
> | 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.
>
> Only on the cases, e.g. input values, where they aren't both defined.
>
Only because they have different preconditions. They shouldn't.
--
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/20131016/c68d6a53/attachment-0001.html
More information about the ub
mailing list