On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:05:09PM -0500, Jason Merrill via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I thought I had implemented P1186R3, but apparently I didn't read it closely
> enough to understand the point of the paper, namely that for a defaulted
> operator<=>, if a member type doesn't have a viable operator<=>,
I thought I had implemented P1186R3, but apparently I didn't read it closely
enough to understand the point of the paper, namely that for a defaulted
operator<=>, if a member type doesn't have a viable operator<=>, we will use
its operator< and operator== if the defaulted operator has an specific
c
