4 ms·
You are right. He was really careful in picking double instead of int for this example.
by pavanky 12y ago
You are right. He was really careful in picking double instead of int for this example.
- ridiculous_fish 12y agoActually 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.