On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 22:18, Justin Bassett via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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! I think the example could use a bit of explanation, because..

*mirthless laughter* so all this boils down to
equality_comparable_with<T, U> managing to require that
T and U are individually equality_comparable, even though all we're
doing here is a heterogeneous comparison.
equal_to superficially looks like it can do such a heterogeneous
comparison, but it can do it only if the
heterogeneous arguments are themselves equally_comparable, which is an
operation the predicate never
uses, so it's a bit beyond me why it's required by the algorithm, but
ranges do a lot of this "be regular or you won't work".

Presumably the same goes for the upper_bound example.

The improved motivation is highly useful, thanks again - this makes
the proposal far more palatable, and flips my
initial take on "why bother" to "seems like a decent fix". :P Please
consider adding an explanation of the example,
so that it doesn't take a test run of it and reading through the
concept satisfaction errors. Perhaps even provide
an online compiler link, although the explanation would probably be
much more useful.