1. [associative.reqmts]/2 specifies that “the object of type Compare” as “the comparison object” of “a container”, without any notice about the relationship between the object and such a container. Since “a container” is a type (rather than “a container object”) in this context, it implies that there can be arbitrary amount of objects of type Compare counted as the comparison objects. However, this is inconsistent with the “an empty container” wording below in the table, which also emphasizes “a copy” of the comparison object being used. So, which should be the right meaning of “comparison object”?

2. [associative.reqmts]/13 specifies that the comparison object being used is “copied” rather than “copy-initialized”. Is there any reason to rule the move construction out here?

3. [associative.reqmts]/13 does not specifie the ownership of the comparison object explicitly. Does this allow that stateless comparison objects are not required to be stored in the container objects at all?

These questions are particularly interested in reviewing implementations like this.