I agree that LSP is incorrect. That's a symptom of me writing this draft
while being a bit too tired.

See the updated draft with motivation updated. It also includes a brief
Tony table.

Thanks,
Justin

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:04 PM Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 21:51, Nevin Liber via Std-Proposals
> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > That same argument applies to comparing two nullptr_t objects, and yet
> we can equality compare them.
>
> Alright. So nullptr_it has equality, but no ordering, and this
> proposal gives it ordering. It's a funny ordering tho,
> since the ordering just tells us that all nullptr_t objects are equal.
> I'm not sure I see the use of that. Same goes
> for ordering nullopt objects.
>
> That, and practical uses would be useful improvements to the rationale
> of the proposal. I have no particular
> predictions of how it'll fare otherwise or with the improved
> rationale, to me it thus far seems like a harmless but
> also useless change, so I'm relatively ambivalent about it, although
> given that, I have a slight bias
> towards "why bother?" The rationale improvements could change that
> take. How the rest of the committee
> see it, I can't tell, and guessing would be fairly futile.
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>