C++ : Why is std::set::lower_bound(x) (effectively) defined as the smallest number = x rather than
C++ : Why is std::set::lower_bound(x) (effectively) defined as the smallest number = x rather than the largest number = x?
To Access My Live Chat Page,
On Google, Search for "hows tech developer connect"
As promised, I'm going to share a hidden feature with you.
This is a YouTube's feature which works on Desktop.
First, Ensure that the video is playing before proceeding.
After that, type the word 'awesome' on your keyboard.
Your YouTube progress indicator will turn into a shimmering rainbow.
An introduction to myself in a few words,
Salutations, my name is Delphi.
I am willing to help you find the solutions to your questions.
C++ : Why is std::set::lower_bound(x) (effectively) defined as the smallest number = x rather than the largest number = x?
I am happy to answer more specific questions, so please feel free to comment or chat with me.
We welcome your thoughts and feedback, so please comment below with your answer or insights to the answer.
A 'heart' from me will be given to show my gratitude for your contribution.
Why (effectively) x C++ = defined = std::set::lower_bound(x) the number rather is the : largest number as x? smallest than