30 Nov
2014
30 Nov
'14
11:56 p.m.
Mere moments ago, quoth I:
Optional is more borderline. I don't really have a problem with comparing two optionals, or even the default "none is less than anything" relation. But when you start mixing comparisons with implicitly-promoted-non-optionals you increase the risk of unintended bugs (eg. opt < 5 is true but the intended comparison was opt && *opt < 5, which is false).
I should probably clarify that I meant that if op< exists, I am most comfortable with "none" sorting below any other value rather than any of the alternatives. But I would be happier if "none" had no ordering and op< did not exist.