home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c
- Path: nntp.coast.net!torn!sq!msb
- From: msb@sq.com (Mark Brader)
- Subject: Re: Restrictions on qsort compare function?
- Message-ID: <1996Mar22.202615.9926@sq.com>
- Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
- References: <4iokop$h4p@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> <4iqjar$2m9@usenet.pa.dec.com> <1996Mar21.113301.2622@sq.com> <4it51b$ng8@usenet.pa.dec.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 20:26:15 GMT
-
- # The function shall return an integer less than, equal to, or greater
- # than zero if the first argument is considered to be respectively
- # less than, equal to, or greater than the second.
-
- > > In other words, it must yield an ordering of the possible data values.
- > > This is only the case if
- > > 1. It is a pure function...
- > > 2. It is antisymmetric (I think that's the right word)...
- > > 3. If is transitive...
- >
- > You have given an intuitively and logically reasonable definition of a
- > comparison system, but the standard does not.
-
- The standard does not have to define a "comparison system", because it
- does not use that term in the cited passage. What this poster has called
- "an intuitively and logically reasonable definition of a comparison system"
- was intended as a statement of the obvious implications of the cited
- passage. (Specifically, these implications follow from the use of the
- expressions "considered to be ... less than, equal to, or greater than".)
-
- > Until the standard finds a definition of a comparison system, it is
- > defective.
-
- Nonsense; the cited passage is perfectly clear.
- --
- Mark Brader "Yet again, I begged him to explain himself in plain
- SoftQuad Inc. English. This request always surprises him, as he
- msb@sq.com is always under the extraordinary impression that
- Toronto he has done so." -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes Minister"
-
- My text in this article is in the public domain.
-