🚀 go-pugleaf

#  The function shall return an integer less than, equal to, or greater
#  than zero if the first argument is considered to be respectively
#  less than, equal to, or greater than the second.
 
> > In other words, it must yield an ordering of the possible data values.
> > This is only the case if
> > 1. It is a pure function...
> > 2. It is antisymmetric (I think that's the right word)...
> > 3. If is transitive...
> 
> You have given an intuitively and logically reasonable definition of a
> comparison system, but the standard does not.

The standard does not have to define a "comparison system", because it
does not use that term in the cited passage.  What this poster has called
"an intuitively and logically reasonable definition of a comparison system"
was intended as a statement of the obvious implications of the cited
passage.  (Specifically, these implications follow from the use of the
expressions "considered to be ... less than, equal to, or greater than".)

> Until the standard finds a definition of a comparison system, it is
> defective.

Nonsense; the cited passage is perfectly clear.
-- 
Mark Brader          "Yet again, I begged him to explain himself in plain
SoftQuad Inc.         English.  This request always surprises him, as he
msb@sq.com            is always under the extraordinary impression that
Toronto               he has done so."       -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes Minister"

My text in this article is in the public domain.