Re: Baby X is bor nagain

Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
[on the requirements for qsort]
>

I certainly would favor improved wording that made this clearer.
In fact, simply explicitly mandating total ordering rather than
making a vague comment about consistency would probably be the
best approach.

>
Clearly the C standard intends to impose a weaker requirement
than that the comparison function be a total ordering.

"That is, for qsort they shall define a total ordering on the
array".

I presume you didn't intend to contradict that requirement, but
I can't figure out what you meant -- unless, as Ben suggested,
you're distinguishing between a total ordering of all possible
arguments and a total ordering of objects present in the array.
But even then, the standard explicitly imposes a total ordering.
(The requirements for bsearch might be weaker, but we're discussing
qsort.)

Can you clarify what you meant?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */