[Phil Endecott]
But in any case, it's not hard to write; just require that T is a type for which *i==value is valid.
What am I missing?
[Dave Abrahams]
You're missing that == should *mean* something.
Why should the algorithm assume any more meaning than it has to? For example, std::equal() does not require symmetry. This is just fine for people comparing a range of T to a range of T, where T == T is symmetric, and makes people comparing a range of X to a range of Y, where X == Y is provided and Y == X has not even been implemented (and X can't be converted to/from Y), super happy.
You're not even requiring it to be symmetric. Why is it right to test *i==value instead of value==*i?
The algorithm takes (first, last, value), putting the range on the left and the value on the right. STL