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

Andrzej Krzemienski writes:

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

I actually had a small bug in production code a few years ago after changing an integral type to an optional because I hadn't expected this behavior, so I think that would be good.