Hello,

Please see the attached draft proposal. This expands on the earlier thread
on relaxing the common reference requirements for equality_comparable_with.
I updated the draft based on feedback on the other thread regarding adding
comparisons to nullptr and nullopt.

In short, this proposal relaxes the *comparison_relation*_with concepts by
relaxing the common_reference_with requirement in a way to support
move-only types, as previously the common_reference_with requirement
requires copyability of the arguments if the common reference was not
actually a reference. This proposal changes the convertible_to<const T&,
CR> (where CR is the common reference) to convertible_to<T&&, const CR&>,
which both allows avoiding the copy if CR is the same type as T and avoids
the copy (calling CR(const T&)) of T if CR is not the same type as T.

One concern I have is with respect to the semantic requirements in the
proposed wording. It might be giving the impression that two values are
only *comparison_relation*_with if they are non-const, but this is not so;
they can be const, but the operator@ must yield the same result ignoring
side effects as if the lvalues were non-const. I'm not sure if the proposed
wording properly captures that.

Thanks,
Justin Bassett