Re: [patch] : Add more symantics to sort, partial_sort, nth_element

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

chris jefferson wrote:

> (Famous last words) I feel fairly confident about all the code from an
> algorithmic viewpoint (I've stepped through it all in a debugger),
> although it's not totally impossible (I'm fairly confident however)
> that I haven't accidentally made a slight assumption I'm not permitted
> to use. I've been finding it fairly hard to find big pieces of C++
> code which really push the standard library to be sure.
>
> Sorry about the qualifications...

Ok, agreed. I'm also fairly confident. Something we *can* do,
pre-emptively, is adding a couple of additional testcases stressing even
more the new code. At your ease, of course.

> Yes, I should have documented that.. sorry. I'm going to take the time
> to step back and do a bit of cleaning now I think, before submitting
> stable_sort / inplace_partition (which are quite intrusive).

Thanks. I'm confident that we can merge at least some of that within the
v6 library ABI, therefore let's do these things in the best way we can
with a release in mind (see above too).

>> Also, a trivial patch replacing everywhere __is_moveable::value with
>> __value is *very* welcome: user code *can* define a value macro,
>> remember. 
>
> It looks like I don't have to now :) But sorry, I should still have
> done this some time ago!

Yeah, you don't have to ;) However, from a coding-style point-of-view
maybe we can as well add those underscores: at variance with the base()
case we are adding new "utility" code and we can as well be consistent.
But I can do that, don't worry.

Paolo.