Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2024 16:33:58 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <87msnbtes9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v4pddb$m5th$1@dont-email.me> <20240618115650.00006e3f@yahoo.com> <v4rv0o$1b7h1$1@dont-email.me> <20240618184026.000046e1@yahoo.com> <v4sd75$1ed31$1@dont-email.me> <877celzx14.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <v4u85k$1t2pu$2@dont-email.me> <v4ucmn$1u14i$1@dont-email.me> <v4v2br$22c0m$1@dont-email.me> <v4v5nu$230rh$2@dont-email.me> <v4vfrn$24rv6$1@dont-email.me> <v50n9s$2fkko$1@dont-email.me> <v50poh$2g4ha$1@dont-email.me> <87iky3svqh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <874j9nxsdy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <874j9ns382.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <86h6dlhb34.fsf@linuxsc.com> <8734p3rjno.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v59bhe$ch8p$1@dont-email.me> <86zfrbfsd6.fsf@linuxsc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 01:33:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="0a690d6294358a2c4bce5879f14e083a"; logging-data="590734"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ii9/HrwAcBdLBV8RHthvZ"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hMADS2bmpVC7N+KOwVT6qldOu30= sha1:T8fWqGsvdodXxV2ooam3+/eO5LM=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:386415

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 */