🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <KANZE.95Jul25103036@slsvhdt.lts.sel.alcatel.de>,
James Kanze US/ESC 60/3/141 #40763 <kanze@lts.sel.alcatel.de> wrote:

>May I ask a question: why all these worries about qsort?  Why not just
>use sort (section 25.3.1.1)?  It is more flexible, and the benchmarks
>I've see suggest it is (as is to be expected) faster.

	I agree completely with James. "qsort" is there for
C compatibility.

	DONT USE IT!

	It isn't clear it is POSSIBLE to use qsort.
Suppose extern "C" functions use a DIFFERENT calling convention.

	Question 1: what is the calling convention of a function passed
to such a function -- C or C++? Answer: C because otherwise qsort
would not work.

	Question 2: can you compile an extern "C" function in C++?
Answer: not necessarily. 

	Question 3: can you call code compiled with a C compiler?
Answer: not necessarily.


	Result: qsort may not be useable: it has to be there,
it doesn't have to be useful. You certainly can't assume at this
point in time any use of it will be portable. The final Standard
might provide better guarrantees, but I have doubts.
--
        JOHN (MAX) SKALLER,         INTERNET:maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au
	Maxtal Pty Ltd,		    
        81A Glebe Point Rd, GLEBE   Mem: SA IT/9/22,SC22/WG21 
        NSW 2037, AUSTRALIA	    Phone: 61-2-566-2189