On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 09:34:59 joaquin wrote:
Isn't this the same as the C++11 is_sorted_until?
Yes! C+11 had is_sorted_until and is_sorted (equivalent to is_sorted_until(first,last)==last). I think the names here should be the same for >consistency reasons, and probably the functions should be just aliases to the c++11 ones where applicable.
With the RV convention change that I proposed on github (always point before the first element that is out-of-order with respect to its predecessor, rather than the first that is out-of-order with respect to its successor), it would be exactly the same, so I think we may be stuck with this name, even though I agree that it sounds like it should return a bool. If we were starting from scratch my first impulse would be end_of_ordered_prefix(), but that too seems wordier than the ideal.