Re: string> missing?

[Nick Andryshak]

Jay Belanger writes:

> In what way is any one of the answers the least bit unreasonable?

Since you asked:

> Because they do.

"Because they do" is a non-answer.

> The cause is lost in history.

Nonsense.

> No, I don't agree.

I really don't understand why Eli would say something like this. I think
it contradicts his work.

> That's exactly the point: there's no need to apply the same logic to
> both cases.

This makes no sense: I'm sure many people have seen the function
'string<' and assumed that there exists a counterpart 'string>'. I think
that this is a reasonable assumption to make. In fact, that's probably
why we're having this (rather silly) discussion in the first place.

- Nick