[ 2014-02-13 Issaquah, Daniel comments and suggests wording ]

First, I didn't originally move the seemingly lost wording to the resolution section because I wanted to ensure that the committee double-checks the reason of this loss.

Second, albeit restoring this wording will restore the comparability of const_iterator and iterator of containers specified in Clause 23, but this alone would not imply that this guarantee automatically extends to all other iterators, simply because there is no fundamental relation between a mutable iterator and a constant iterator by itself. This relation only exists under specific conditions, for example for containers which provide two such typedefs of that kind. Thus the wording restoration would not ensure that allocator pointer and const_pointer would be comparable with each other. To realize that, we would need additional guarantees added to the allocator requirements. In fact, it is crucial to separate these things, because allocators are not restricted to be used within containers, they have their own legitimate use for other places as well (albeit containers presumably belong to the most important use-cases), and this is also stated in the introduction of [allocator.requirements], where it says:

All of the string types (Clause 21), containers (Clause 23) (except array), string buffers and string streams (Clause 27), and match_results (Clause 28) are parameterized in terms of allocators.