Template talk:cpp/thread/thread/id/dsc operator cmp

Is "removed" really suitable here?
"Removed" implies that comparing two values was made prohibited (and an attempt to do so would result in a compile-time error). But that's not the case here, is it? Consider saying "until" instead of "removed in" (and symmetrically say "since" for ). — Radix (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2020 (PDT)
 * The implication doesn't hold because there are rewritten candidates in C++20. There are almost no comparison expressions invalidated by (exceptions can be found in the proposal).
 * Both "until" and "removed in" have the same meaning here, we should treat them consistently in the template family. By the way, "since" is generally not used in the  template family. --Fruderica (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2020 (PDT)
 * I understand that the implication is invalid, but it's still present. Or, at least for me, "removed" connotates more strictness and intention than "until". I.o.w. "removed" means "we deliberately dropped this features (for some reason)", while "until", well, doesn't imply that meaning that much.
 * Imagine the following situation. A person has written some C++11 code that uses comparison of values (, perhaps) and it works just fine. They don't know (or care) about C++20. One day they stumble upon this documentation that apparently says that the operators were removed. That would be confusing to read. I think that combination "until"+"since" is more smooth for understanding than just "removed in".
 * Regarding not using "since" in : if making an exception helps understandability, we should consider doing so. Or, perhaps, we can invent a new Template:mark —  or something like that. — Radix (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2020 (PDT)
 * I think capturing attention of that programmer who was 10 years behind and just took a look at the reference is a desireable feature. Otherwise, cpp/language/default_comparisons are not at all discoverable. --Cubbi (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2020 (PDT)
 * Wouldn't doing it my way capture attention?
 * Description of comparison operators for library types is not quite the right place for pushing the discovery of the new feature: it's not the usage that was made obsolete, it's the way of providing that usage. (We could leave the description without mentioning the removals and at all and from a user's PoV that wouldn't make much difference.) cpp/language/default_comparisons should be (and actually is) discoverable through cpp/language/operators — the place one might refer to when overloading comparisons. — Radix (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2020 (PDT)

It seems that the wording might have already led to misinterpretation: https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/gjmbrl/stdunique_ptroperator_deprecated_in_c20/. — Radix (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2020 (PDT)