

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>0:00</time>
      <p>
          And   even   without   the   multiplicative   increase   from   those   terms,   there&#39;s   still   a   dozen   or   more,   is   it?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>0:06</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   and   there&#39;s   the   ones,   again,   no   one   thinks   about   these.   So   copy   assignment   operator.   Your   options   are   by   value,   const   reference   by   value,   by   reference,   const   reference,   volatile   reference,   or   const   file   tile   reference.   That&#39;s   for   the   parameter,   right?   The   right   hand   side   of   the   argument.   But   you   can   also   reference,   you   can   L-value   reference   or   r   value   reference   qualify   it.   So   that&#39;s   three   different   states   there,   because   unqualified,   L-value,   or   r   value   reference   qualified.   And   then   you   can   also   qualify   it   as   const   volatile,   const   volatile   or   unqualified,   right?
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>0:59</time>
      <p>
          Recorded   on   October   7th,   2026.   My   name   is   Connor,   and   today   with   my   co-host   Ben,   we   chat   with   Jason   Turner   in   part   two   of   this   three-part   conversation.   In   today&#39;s   episode,   we   talk   about   Jason   Turner&#39;s   rule   of   N   talk   that   he   gave   both   at   CPPCon   and   NDC   Tech   Town.   Well,   maybe   we   should   talk   about   some   of   these   talks.   I   know   that   Ben   had   specifically   called   out   this   rule   of   N,   which   I&#39;m   assuming   is   uh   alluding   to   the   rule   of   one,   three,   five.   Although   it   could   be   a   different   rule   that   happens   to   be.   It   is?   Okay,   so   maybe   I&#39;m   not   sure,   Ben,   if   you   have   a   question   or   or   Well,   why   don&#39;t   we   ask   Jason   first?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>1:45</time>
      <p>
          What   is   the   rule   of   n?   What   that   what   is   what   does   the   talk   cover?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>1:48</time>
      <p>
          The   talk   I   wanted   to   give   kind   of   a   modern   update   on   like   the   rule   of   zero   and   five,   basically,   right?   And   like,   well,   okay,   Ben,   you   don&#39;t   like   I   think   this   is   fair   to   say,   you   don&#39;t   like   things   that   are   default   constructible.   Is   that   a   safe-ish?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>2:04</time>
      <p>
          I   don&#39;t   like   I   was   thinking   about   this   this   morning   in   preparation   for   our   conversation   today.   And   yeah,   let&#39;s   go   with   that.   I   have   a   whole   lot   to   say   on   that,   but   let&#39;s   let&#39;s   park   that   for   a   moment.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>2:14</time>
      <p>
          So   at   the   very   least,   you   have   opinions   and   you   think,   look,   if   your   thing&#39;s   gonna   be   default   constructible,   there   should   be   a   reason   why   it&#39;s   default   constructible.   Is   that   fair?   I   think   that&#39;s   fair.   For   sure.   Okay.   For   sure.   But   most   people   don&#39;t   even   don&#39;t   think   about   default   constructability,   right?   So   I&#39;m   just   like,   okay,   so   let&#39;s   talk   about,   let&#39;s   take   it   to   the   rule   of   six,   right?   Which   you   don&#39;t   like,   okay,   if   you   go   look   at   Howard   Hinnett&#39;s   like   articles   on   this   stuff,   yeah,   he   talks   about   the   default   constructor   also   as   one   of   the   special   member   functions,   because   it   is   one   of   the   functions   that   the   compiler   will   create   for   you   if   you   don&#39;t   do   anything   to   get   in   its   way.   And   you   know,   okay,   so   I   just   thought   I   would   do   that.   And   then   I&#39;m   like,   well,   like   I   kind   of   want   to   make   sure   that   I   I   forget   what   road   I   went   down,   but   I&#39;m   like,   I   kind   of   want   to   make   sure   that   I   cover   like   all   the   possible   things   that   can   impact   the   rule   of   five,   right?   So   for   the   sake   of   our   listeners,   if   you   write   a   destructor,   copy   constructor,   move   constructor,   copy   assignment,   or   move   assignment   operator,   then   those   impact   the   other   special   member   functions   that   are   generated.   So   if   you   provide   a   copy   operation,   then   the   compiler   does   not   generate   for   you   the   move   operations.   But   if   you   provide   the   move   operations,   one   or   the   other,   then   the   copy   operations   are   implicitly   deleted.   And   there&#39;s   like   a   big   difference   between   not   provided   and   deleted,   right?   Like   this   anyhow.   So   I   started   to   go   down   this   rabbit   hole,   and   I&#39;m   like,   well,   what   are   all   the   different   signatures   that   the   compiler   thinks   is   a   copy?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>3:49</time>
      <p>
          One   of   the   special   member   functions?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>3:51</time>
      <p>
          Yes.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>3:52</time>
      <p>
          Okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>3:53</time>
      <p>
          And   I   think   well   now   I   have   to   double   check   this.   That   was   I   have   to   Oh   shoot,   I   have   to   go   back   and   look   at   my   numbers.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>4:00</time>
      <p>
          Because   there   are   constra   so   just   to   restate   what   you   just   said,   there   are,   for   example,   considering   copy   construction.   Yes.   There   are   you   can   write   the   copy   constructor   signature   in   potentially   a   number   of   different   ways   that   the   compiler   will   know   that   yes,   this   is   considered   the   copy   constructor.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>4:18</time>
      <p>
          Yes.   And   the   copy   constructor   itself   has   well,   if   you   you   can   you   can   default   arguments   on   the   copy   constructor.   Let&#39;s   just   throw   that   topic   away,   because   you   have   infinitely   many   copy   constructors   if   you   can   default   them.   So   whatever.   Ignore   that.   But   most   people   don&#39;t   know   that   there   are   actually   our   crap,   I&#39;m   gonna   get   these   numbers   wrong.   There&#39;s   a   lot   of   signatures   that   are   count   as   distinct   overloads   that   the   compiler   will   count   as   copy   constructor.   So   it   is,   it   is   non-const   reference,   which   no   one   thinks   about,   of   the   same   type.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>4:56</time>
      <p>
          Right.   The   parameter   is   a   non-constructs.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>4:58</time>
      <p>
          Right,   non-const   reference,   which   is   famous.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>5:00</time>
      <p>
          So   the   regular   one   is   the   parameter   is   a   const   reference.   That   would   be   the   one   most   people   reach   for.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>5:05</time>
      <p>
          That&#39;s   what   most   people   would   reach   for,   but   the   compiler   is   willing   to   generate   one   for   you   that   takes   a   non-const   reference.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>5:10</time>
      <p>
          Okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>5:11</time>
      <p>
          In   the   case   that   the   subobjects   of   your   type   themselves   have   copy   constructors   that   take   non-const   references.   The   compiler   is   going   to   generate   one   for   you   that   takes   a   non-const   reference.   Oh,   right.   No   one   thinks   about   that,   right?   So   non-const   reference,   const   reference,   volatile   reference,   const   file   tile   reference.   Those   are   the   valid   copy   constructor   signatures,   the   things   that   are   actually   different   overloads,   right?   And   move   constructor.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>5:39</time>
      <p>
          But   that   can   be   expressed   also   as   a   template,   perhaps,   or   there   are   other   ways   to   write.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>5:44</time>
      <p>
          No,   if   you   make   it   a   template,   then   it   does   not   impact   the   rule   of   five.   It   has   to   be   a   non-template   function.   As   far   as   the   generation   of   the   other.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>5:51</time>
      <p>
          It   can   be   no   except   or   otherwise.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>5:54</time>
      <p>
          It   can   be   no   except,   but   that   is   a   distinct   type,   but   that   does   not   affect   overload   resolution.   So   I   kind   of   tried   to   focus   a   little   bit   on   like   what   things   specifically   affect   overload   resolution.   But   if   you   include   a   no   accept,   so   I   don&#39;t   know   how   far   we   want   to   go   into   this,   but   like   spoiler   alert   for   the   copy   assignment   operator,   that   if   you   include   also   constexper,   const   eval,   no   except,   and   I   think   no   discard   or   not,   something   like   that.   There&#39;s   320   different   ways   of   spelling   a   copy   assignment   operator   that   the   compiler   will   count   for   you   as   you   provided   a   copy   assignment   operator.   And   like,   what?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>6:31</time>
      <p>
          Right.   And   even   without   the   multiplicative   increase   from   those   terms,   there&#39;s   still   a   dozen   or   more,   is   it?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>6:38</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   and   there&#39;s   the   ones   again,   no   one   thinks   about   these.   So   copy   assignment   operator.   Your   options   are   by   value,   const   reference   by   value,   by   reference,   const   reference,   volatile   reference,   or   const   file   tile   reference.   That&#39;s   for   the   parameter,   right?   The   right   hand   side   of   the   argument.   But   you   can   also   reference,   you   can   L-value   reference   or   r   value   reference   qualify   it.   So   that&#39;s   three   different   states   there,   because   unqualified,   L   value,   or   r   value   reference   qualified.   And   then   you   can   also   qualify   it   as   const   volatile,   const   volatile   or   unqualified,   right?   Whatever   the   multiplication   is.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>7:19</time>
      <p>
          To   be   fair,   qualifying   qualifying   an   assignment   as   const   has   niche   value   only.   You   tend   to   see   it   in   DSLs,   I&#39;m   gonna   say   in   DSLs.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>7:29</time>
      <p>
          Well,   but   someone   in   the   audience   pointed   out   that   stdignore   does   that.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>7:35</time>
      <p>
          Okay,   yeah.   Good   example   from   the   library.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>7:37</time>
      <p>
          Yeah.   So   does   this   mean   that   that   Howard   Hinnant   table   that   anyone   that&#39;s   seen   I   don&#39;t   know,   there&#39;s   a   number   of   talks   that   reference   it.   I   don&#39;t   actually   think   I   saw   the   original   Howard   Hinnant   table.   I   just   it   floats   around   in   the   C   community.   Is   what   you&#39;re   saying   is   that   like   there&#39;s   a   higher   dimensional   version   of   that.   Yes.   Where   all   of   these   qualifiers,   and   so   like   if   you   thought   that   table   was   bad,   that   is   but   the   surface   of   like,   it&#39;s   not   even   like   a   hypercube,   it&#39;s   whatever,   an   n-dimensional   thing   where   these   things   interact.   And   is   that   the   point   of   your   talk   that   like   hold   my   beer,   you   think   that   table&#39;s   bad?   Like   it&#39;s   it&#39;s   way   worse   than   that?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>8:14</time>
      <p>
          Well,   that   wasn&#39;t   it   wasn&#39;t   the   point   of   my   talk.   That&#39;s   just   where   I   started   and   then   accidentally   went   down   this   ridiculous   rabbit   hole.   I   I&#39;ve   spent,   I   don&#39;t   know,   on   the   order   of   probably   over   40   hours   of   research   on   this   talk,   and   I   never   expected   that   to   happen.   Like   I   just   kept   going.   Like,   what   is   happening?   And   then   the   point   of   the,   okay,   so   the   point   of   the,   oh,   let&#39;s   just   do   a   modern   take   on   that.   But   then   I   also   wanted   to   add   the   spaceship   operator   in   because   the   spaceship   operator   has   its   own   concerns.   Like   it&#39;s   not   a   special   member,   and   that   the   compiler   will   never   generate   something,   a   comparison   operator   for   you   unless   you   ask   it   to.   But   it   can.   So   then   I   started   playing   with   the   rules   of   okay,   what   things   can   be   defaulted   or   not.   And   just   for   the   record,   you   can   default   the   reference   qualified   assignment   operators,   and   you   can   default   the   you   can   default   the   copy   constructor   that   takes   a   non-const   reference,   and   you   can   default   the   copy   assignment   operator   that   takes   a   non-const   reference.   Both   of   those   can   be   defaulted   unexpectedly.   Anyhow,   this   and   now   it&#39;s   like   too   much   information   in   my   head.   Now   like   if   a   student   asks   me   a   question   about   one   of   these   things,   I&#39;m   just   like,   and   then   I   try   to   go   into   simplified   mode   because   it&#39;s   now   too   much.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>9:25</time>
      <p>
          All   right.   You   were   getting   to   the   point   that   aside   from   special   members   now,   since   C20   and   seemingly   continuing,   the   compiler   is   now   able   to   generate   more   functions   like   equality,   like   spaceship,   like   maybe   postfix   increment,   is   it   in   C27?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>9:44</time>
      <p>
          In   C&#39;est   29.   In   C29,   that   was   approved.   Postfix   increment,   postfix   decrement   can   be   defaulted   if   you   provide   the   prefix   versions   of   those.   But   the   other   rabbit   hole   I   went   down   is   like,   okay,   say   you   explicitly   equals   default   the   spaceship   operator.   What   does   that   give   you?   And   this   has   becomes   like   a   trick   question.   Unexpectedly.   No,   no,   no,   if   you   explicitly.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>10:12</time>
      <p>
          Well.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>10:12</time>
      <p>
          Uh-huh.   The   return   type   is   its   depends.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>10:15</time>
      <p>
          So   yes.   So   it   would   be   member   wise   spaceship.   Yes.   And   the   return   type   would   depend   on   the   return   type   of   the   spaceship   on   the   subobjects   in   some   way.   Correct.   But   let&#39;s   say   I   mean   the   easy   version   is   like   if   they   all   have   the   same   return   type.   But   it&#39;s   some   common   type   of   of   those   particular.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>10:35</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   it&#39;s   the   common   type   of   the   return   types   of   the   sub-objects,   results   of   their   spaceship   operators.   But   I&#39;m   not   even   worried   about   that   part.   I   mean   like   you   have   the   spaceship   operator,   you&#39;ve   equals   defaulted   it.   Let&#39;s   just   say   hypothetically   you   wanted   to   take   a   pointer   to   the   less   than   operator.   Can   you?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>10:53</time>
      <p>
          Oh.   Well,   the   less   than   operator   doesn&#39;t   exist,   so   maybe   no?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>10:58</time>
      <p>
          It   doesn&#39;t   exist.   I   don&#39;t   know.   You&#39;re   gonna   now   tell   us.   Yeah,   so   the   less   than   operator.   You   can   still   take   it&#39;s   what   is   the   actual   wording?   It   is   usable.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>11:07</time>
      <p>
          Okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>11:08</time>
      <p>
          Okay.   Can   you   take   the   pointer.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>11:11</time>
      <p>
          You   can   write   the   expression   a   less   than   b.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>11:13</time>
      <p>
          Right.   Okay.   Can   you   take   a   pointer   to   the   equality   operator?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>11:19</time>
      <p>
          Well,   I   don&#39;t   know.   And   if   the   answer   is   different   from   can   you   take   a   pointer   to   less   than   a   sort   of   thing.   It   is   different.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>11:25</time>
      <p>
          Of   course   it   is,   right?   Because   if   you   explicitly   default   to   the   spaceship   operator,   the   equals   operator   is   implicitly   defaulted.   But   the   rest   of   them   are   usable.   I&#39;m   doing   air   quotes   for   those   of   you   who   can&#39;t   see   me.   They&#39;re   usable   in   air   quotes.   Alright.   So   the   if   you   if   you   have   an   equals   operator   available   in   code   that   was   pre-C20,   and   now   you   compile   it   in   C20   mode,   you   implicitly   get   not   equals.   That&#39;s   neat.   Thank   you,   C20,   for   implicitly   giving   me   not   equals.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>11:59</time>
      <p>
          Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>11:59</time>
      <p>
          But   that   implicitly   available   not   equals,   that   is   also   usable.   That   is   not   actually   existing,   right?   So   I   can&#39;t,   I   can&#39;t   take   a   pointer   to   the   not.   Anyhow,   it   was   this   rabbit   hole   that   just   kept   getting   deeper   and   deeper   and   deeper.   And   so   you   might   have   reasons   for   explicitly   defaulting   all   six   equality   operators.   Yeah,   uh   yes,   all   the   comparison   operators.   You   might   have   a   reason   for   explicitly   defaulting   them   all   if   you   want   them   to   be   like   actually   exist,   not   just   usable.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>12:39</time>
      <p>
          Right.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>12:40</time>
      <p>
          It&#39;s   just   oh,   I   don&#39;t   know.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>12:41</time>
      <p>
          So   what&#39;s   the   answer   to   the   question?   So   what   is   the   answer   to   the   question?   Can   you   take   a   pointer   to   operator   less   than   if   you   have   defaulted   operator   spaceship?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>12:49</time>
      <p>
          Oh   no,   no,   you   can&#39;t.   Sorry.   That   function   doesn&#39;t   exist.   You   can&#39;t.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>12:52</time>
      <p>
          You   can&#39;t.   Okay.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>12:53</time>
      <p>
          You   can   use   it,   but   you   can&#39;t   take   a   pointer   to   it.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>12:55</time>
      <p>
          I   see.   Yeah.   Yeah,   because   the   compiler&#39;s   not   generating   that   function,   it&#39;s   doing   something   like   rewriting   expressions   or   trying   correct   rewrites   of   expressions.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>13:04</time>
      <p>
          It   rewrites   it,   yeah.   And   just   in   case   anyone&#39;s   curious,   if   you   do   explicitly   default   it   and   then   you   take   a   pointer   to   it   and   you   call   it,   it   is   internally   going   to   call   the   spaceship   operator   and   then   and   then   check   to   see   if   it   was   less   than.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>13:17</time>
      <p>
          Right.   Okay.   So   the   compiler&#39;s   implementation   of   that   equals   default   would   would   route   to   the   spaceship.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>13:23</time>
      <p>
          But   you   can&#39;t   default,   like   if   I   wanted   only   less   than,   hypothetically,   I   cannot   just   equals   default   that.   I   have   to   equals   default   the   spaceship.   And   then   what   I   would   actually   have   to   do   is   equals   default   spaceship   and   then   explicitly   delete   the   other   ones   if   I   wanted   the   compiler   generated   less   than,   hypothetically.   The   talk   just   became   a   giant   rabbit   hole.   That&#39;s   all.   Like   there&#39;s   just   so   many   little   nuanced   details   to   this   that   I   had   no   idea.   And   it   was   an   interesting   ride.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>13:53</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   I   uh   I   I   may   have   released   some   of   the   rabbits   on   Jason   a   couple   of   months   ago.   The   talk   when   you   were   because   because   when   Jason   said,   you   know,   I&#39;m   thinking   about   doing   this   rule   of   n,   modern   take,   I   said,   and   something   I   had   recognized   in   coming   in   my   code   is   a   lot   of   times   I   followed   the   rule   of   zero,   right?   Which   is   just   a   lot   of   things   are   just   plain   structs,   and   it&#39;s   the   rule   of   zero.   But   equality   is   important   in   a   lot   of   places   where   you   have   so   effectively   it   becomes   the   rule   of   one.   You   want   to   provide   equality.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>14:24</time>
      <p>
          And   which   can   be   the   same.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>14:26</time>
      <p>
          One   of   the   rabbits   that   that   that   dug   this   war   in.   Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>14:29</time>
      <p>
          That&#39;s   right.   Yes.   Yes,   you   did   that,   you   caused   part   of   that   problem,   and   then   you   caused   the   rest   of   the   problem   when   you   asked   me   something   about   whether   or   not   they   can   be   if   the   right   hand   side   can   be,   or   the   left   hand,   whatever,   if   the   if   the   operator   itself   can   be   const   qualified   or   something.   You   you   brought   that   up,   and   I   said,   oh   crap.   Oh   there&#39;s   like   a   multiply   of   three   for   all   of   these   now,   again.   Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>14:53</time>
      <p>
          Anyhow,   what   was   the   reaction   in   the   in   the   audience   after   you&#39;d   given   the   talk?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>14:59</time>
      <p>
          I   think   it   was   a   good   reaction   at   CBP   Con.   I   gave   the   talk   at   CBPCon   and   DC   Type   and   N   D   C   Type   Town.   I   think   it   did   a   better   job   at   C   BPCon,   and   I   feel   like   it   was   a   good   reaction.   I   think   it   made   people   think.   And   I   think   one   of   the   main   like   practical   things   that   that   came   out   of   this,   and   I&#39;ve   talked   to   other   people   about   it   since   then,   is   like   if   you   have   something   like   a   strong   wrapper   around   a   floating   point   type,   there&#39;s   a   very   real   possibility   that   you   would   want   to   explicitly   default   the   spaceship   and   then   explicitly   delete   the   equality   operator   because   that&#39;s   considered   problematic   anyhow.   So   make   your   make   your   user   of   your   library   do   something   more   explicit.   Just   I   don&#39;t   know.   The   the   the   the   the   TLDR   of   this   thing   is   like   think   before   you   write   code,   people.   You   know.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>15:51</time>
      <p>
          I   mean,   yeah   exactly.   This   whole   thing.   I   have   a   class   in   my   code   base   which   deals   with   wraparound.   Right?   So   it&#39;s   the   original   use   case   was   like   you   have   a   you   have   a   microcontroller,   it   has   a   32-bit   unsigned   register   that   is   time   that   is   continually   incrementing   microseconds,   let&#39;s   say.   And   of   course   that   can   wrap   around,   and   you   when   you   measure   time,   you   need   to   know   what&#39;s   in   the   past   and   what&#39;s   in   the   future.   You   need   to   account   for   that   wraparound.   Oh   right.   And   so   quite   reasonably   I   wanted   a   class   that   could   encapsulate   that,   and   so   the   the   comparison   operators   on   the   class   do   the   appropriate   thing   for   the   wraparound   of   the   unsigned   value,   right?   And   for   the   for   that   class,   I   delete   operator   less   than.   Right?   I   c   I   spell   it   differently.   I   have   like   I   think   I   call   it   CumpLess   or   something.   But   I   delete   operator   less   than,   the   reason   I   do   that   is   that   when   you   have   a   wraparound   semantic   like   that,   your   less   than   operator   is   no   longer   transitive.   Right.   Right?   Because   it&#39;s   like   rock,   paper,   scissors,   right?   It&#39;s   non-transitive.   And   that   means   that   if   you   naively   pass   it   to   Yeah,   you   know,   A   beats   B,   B   beats   C,   C   beats   A.   Right?   If   you   have   a   wraparound   space,   your   less   than   operator   is   of   that   form.   Which   means   that   if   you   try   and   sort   things   naively   with   std   sort,   you&#39;re   passing   it   a   comparator   that   does   not   does   not   adhere   to   what   it   requires.   Right.   Which   means   you   have   technically   have   undefined   behavior   at   that   point.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>17:13</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   see   I&#39;m   fully   on   board   with   this,   and   I   think   that&#39;s   a   perfect   example.   Like,   yeah,   think.   Like   it   doesn&#39;t   make   sense   to   just   blindly   provide   all   of   the   operators.   Selectively   delete   some   if   that   would   make   sense   for   your   problem   set.   Or   maybe   selectively   enable   only   the   couple   that   do   make   sense   for   your   domain.   And   also,   like   I&#39;m   a   I   have   had   a   recent   discussion   with   other   friends   about   this,   and   they   many   of   them   disagree   with   me,   because   they&#39;re   like,   oh   well,   everyone   knows   if   you   provide   the   other   constructors   that   you   don&#39;t   get   a   default   constructor.   And   I&#39;m   like,   you   know   what?   No,   I&#39;ve   reached   the   point   in   my   life   where   if   I   don&#39;t   want   the   thing   default   constructible,   I&#39;m   gonna   explicitly   default,   delete   that   default   constructor.   Always.   You   know,   like   explicitly   delete   the   default   constructor.   Don&#39;t   let   don&#39;t   make,   don&#39;t   require   the   reader   of   your   code   to   know   all   of   the   intricacies   of   how   the   special   member   functions   are   generated.   Be   explicit.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>18:09</time>
      <p>
          Right. Or   zoom   because   as   you&#39;ve   just   talked   about   and   demonstrated,   that   is   a   very   deep   rabbit   warren.   It&#39;s   a   warren,   it&#39;s   not   just   a   hole.   It&#39;s   a   whole   not   just   the   hole,   it&#39;s   a   whole   network   of   tunnels.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>18:22</time>
      <p>
          It&#39;s   a   whole   civilization   under   there.   What   is   Warren?   W-A-R-R-E-N?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>18:27</time>
      <p>
          Yeah.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>18:27</time>
      <p>
          Yeah,   you   know,   where   rabbits   live.   That&#39;s   a   new   word,   a   new   word.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>18:31</time>
      <p>
          I   have   to   be   honest,   I   only   know   that   word   because   I   read   the   Kevin   and   Kell   comic   strip.   It&#39;s   old.   It&#39;s   been   around   forever.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>18:37</time>
      <p>
          I   don&#39;t   know   that.   I   was   gonna   say   that&#39;s   not   cal   that&#39;s   not   a   different   word   for   Calvin   and   Hobbes,   is   it?
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>18:41</time>
      <p>
          No.   Kevin   and   Kel   is   probably   the   I   think   they   advertise   themselves   as   the   oldest   webcomic,   oldest   continuous   webcomic.   I   don&#39;t   know.   I   discovered   it   maybe,   I   don&#39;t   know,   15   years   ago   or   something,   and   I   went   back   and   I   read   the   entire   archive.   So   I&#39;ve   I&#39;ve   read   now   all   holy   crap,   31   years   of   it?   Oh   my   god.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>18:58</time>
      <p>
          I   was   gonna   say,   if   it&#39;s   if   it&#39;s   the   oldest   webcomic,   it   must   have   started   the   mid-90s.
      </p>

        <cite>Jason Turner</cite>
      <time>19:03</time>
      <p>
          95,   yeah.   Good   gracious.   That&#39;s   before   Connor   was   born.   No,   no.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>19:09</time>
      <p>
          Not   quite   good.   I   was   I   was   but   a   wee   lad   back   then.   But   um   Warren,   I&#39;ll   add   a   I&#39;ll   add   a   I   don&#39;t   know,   dictionary   link   to   some   dick   online   dictionary   for   those   that   are   in   my   in   my   camp.   I   was   watching   an   interview   the   other   day   on   Jon   Stewart,   and   he   kept   on   throwing   out   these   words,   and   I   was   like,   if   I   was   the   inner   being   interviewed,   I   would   have   to   ask   every   second   question.   Like,   sorry,   can   you   define   that?   Like   I   felt   so   bad   for   the   I   assume   the   interviewee.   Uh   his   vocabulary   was   larger   than   mine,   but   I   can&#39;t   remember   a   couple   of   the   words.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>19:38</time>
      <p>
          I   was   like   But   John   Stewart   was   being   unnecessarily   recondite   and   sesquipadalian.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>19:44</time>
      <p>
          Okay,   well,   Ben   would   have   gone   toe-to-toe.   He   would   have   come   back   with   that   big   word   and   said   that   stuff.   I   definitely   don&#39;t   have   those   in   my   uh   dictionary   or   vocabulary   either.   Or   definitely   in   my   dictionary,   not   in   my   vocabulary.   What   were   the   two   words   you   just   said?   Recondite   and   something.   I   was   joking.   Sesquipedalian?   Sesquippedalian,   is   that   a   fake   word?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>20:03</time>
      <p>
          No,   no.   I   think   it   means   prone   to   using   long   words.   Oh,   I   thought   I   thought.   In   extreme   form,   it   runs   to   uh   hippopotter   monstrous   sesquippedalian,   I   believe.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>20:15</time>
      <p>
          Wow.   When   you   said   you   were   joking,   I   thought   you   meant   like   it   was   super   califragilistic,   expialidocious,   like   that   kind   of   thing,   like   a   made-up   word,   but   no,   you   were   joking,   but   they&#39;re   real   world   words.   Uh   alright.   Well,   listener,   there&#39;ll   be   a   couple   more   dictionary   entries   if   you   want   to   look   at   some   online   dictionary   definition   of.   I&#39;m   not   gonna   try   and   pronounce   the   second   one   or   the   third   one.   That   was   Impressive.   Impressive   uh   I   guess   that&#39;s   what   you   have   those   ever   come   up   in   your   what   are   they   called?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>20:41</time>
      <p>
          Oh   no,   these   are   just   things   you   learn   uh   uh   from   a   lifetime   of   geeking   out   on   word   games   and   things   like   that.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>20:47</time>
      <p>
          I   was   gonna   say,   yeah,   does   this   come   up   in   cryptics?
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>20:49</time>
      <p>
          Like,   because   that&#39;s   probably   uh   Well,   long   words   don&#39;t   tend   to   come   up   in   crosswords   very   much   because   they   just   no.   There   are   you   know,   a   crossword   is   at   maximum,   and   the   crossword   entry   is   fifteen,   a   crossword   grid   is   fifteen   by   fifteen   as   a   standard.   So   you   don&#39;t   tend   to   get   very   long   In   fact,   it&#39;s   rare   to   get   even   a   fifteen   letter.   Usually   top   out   about   eleven,   twelve,   maybe   thirteen.
      </p>

        <cite>Conor</cite>
      <time>21:09</time>
      <p>
          Be   sure   to   check   these   show   notes   either   in   your   podcast   app   or   at   adspthepodcast.com   for   links   to   anything   we   mentioned   in   today&#39;s   episode,   as   well   as   a   link   to   a   GitHub   discussion   where   you   can   leave   thoughts,   comments,   and   questions.   Thanks   for   listening.   We   hope   you   enjoyed   and   have   a   great   day.   I   am   the   anti   brace.
      </p>

        <cite>Ben</cite>
      <time>21:24</time>
      <p>
          Um
      </p>