Re: [boost] [optional] operator<(optional<T>, T) -- is it wrong?

On 11/24/2014 09:07 PM, Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

Anyone else? Would you be affected if operator<(optional<T>, T) is poisoned? (but operator==(optional<T>, T) remains working)

Another *pragmatic* point (probably more relevant for the std::optional variant) is if op<(T, optional<T>) is prohibited now and then later it is decided that decision was wrong (even though I can't possibly see how as it does not take *any* functionality away), then adding it back will not cause any issues. On the contrary, it op<() is allowed to stay now and later it's decided that decision was wrong and op<() is better taken out, then it won't be possible to do... well, much harder anyway as it's be a breaking change.