I've attempted to address issues in the attached latest draft. In particular, the Tony Table has changed slightly to be more straightforward, with some discussion after it. I also included some discussion on why this change should be included despite nullfoo being not too much shorter than the foo<T>() constructors. With respect to my statement that I don't feel the Tony Table shows exceedingly strong motivation for the paper, I do feel that it shows good motivation, and that with this paper proposing such a minor change, it's never going to have an immense effect in diffs.

I realized from what Nevin said that I appear to have assumed the rationale for removing nullptr < nullptr as "When removing ptr > nullptr, there was no longer any real appeal to nullptr > nullptr because the relational operators are meaningless in isolation." It would definitely be better to have the actual rationale rather than my assumed rationale.

Thanks,

Justin