3 ms·

Don't do this. It has overflow issues.

• pavanky 12y ago
  You are right. He was really careful in picking double instead of int for this example.
  • ridiculous_fish 12y ago
    Actually I would say it was rather careless, because it mishandles NaNs: vector<double> v = {0, nan(""), 1}; sort(v.begin(), v.end(), [](double x, double y) { return x>y; }); In my test this leaves the vector unchanged, which is definitely not in decreasing order.
    • lomnakkus 12y ago
      ">" does not form a total order on doubles if you include NaN, so that's not really suprising. That is, you're providing a comparison function which is invalid, you should (at best) expect invalid results.