On Sun, 24 Sept 2023, 22:40 Chris Gary via Std-Proposals, <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Oh, so what you're saying is that basically every single argument you
>> made in this thread thus far was a subterfuge. All that talk about
>> `int` being "easier to use," or "It must be possible to effectively
>> use the language without the library" and so forth was just a
>> smokescreen.
>>
>
> `int` *is *easier to work with. There was no smokescreen. What happened:
> Architecture astronomy.
>
> What I thought was implied: Any value *not* in the set {-1,0,1} is
> undefined for an int compare. Sign of difference. All things are integers.
> Map into the larger set before comparing elements. Heterogeneous
> comparisons are otherwise meaningless. NaN <=> NaN -> Undefined -->
> Undefined is NaN for a ternary, so we still have false for all relational
> operators.
>
> There is a branch-free way to test for set containment, any compiler can
> implement the implied rules without any more overhead than the existing
> solution, and doing away with another need for an import or an #include is
> always a good thing.
>
> I feel as though I'm having to spell out my position over and over again,
> so its a bit aggravating.
>

It's fine, no need to spell it out again. I'm 100% convinced it's a dead
end and not worth spending any more time on.