<div dir="ltr">On 16 October 2013 17:13, 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"><div class="im">On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Nevin Liber <<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hmmm... I think you are right... although I thought the intention was it<br>
> works for less<void>.<br>
<br>
</div>IIRC, Stephan intentionally left the weasel-words out of<br>
std::less<void>, and we've discussed that choice before and generally<br>
found it reasonable.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not sure how to interpret that.</div><div><br></div><div>1. The current weasel words are good enough, even though it specifically says that it only applies to specializations of pointer types, which void clearly isn't.</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. std::less<void> isn't intended as a drop-in replacement for std::less<T*>.</div><div><br></div><div>3. Pointers, while historically not totally ordered, are practically so for all systems in existence today, with the exception of the ivory tower minds of the committee, so the point is moot.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Also, do you remember when we had this discussion? I've only found notes for LWG Portland, but I thought we had talked about it since then.</div></div>-- <br> Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target="_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>> (847) 691-1404
</div></div>