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.


On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 12:04 PM Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jul 2021 at 21:51, Nevin Liber via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> 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