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

On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 11:13 AM Nevin Liber via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:12 PM Jens Maurer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#583

If there is some feeling or use-case that nullptr < nullptr
should be well-formed, that could be proposed. 

What was the rationale for removing it?  What was the rationale for keeping nullptr == nullptr?  That rationale is what a paper would have to argue against.  CWG 583 and 1512 talked about problems with heterogeneous comparisons, not homogeneous comparisons.
--
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin@cplusplusguy.com>  +1-847-691-1404
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals