Thanks for the proposal, it seems fine to me with or without raw value support, where I can see the arguments either way. The analogy with case ordering already having a big impact on enums with integer raw values is a good one.
I did find this sentence from the introduction confusing:
because of the double negative and the unclear association of the “not themselves conforming to
Comparable” clause with the raw and associated values. It wasn't clear to me what you were proposing until I got to the example in the “Detailed design” section.
That example itself is also a little confusing because of the interaction between the case ordering and the
Int ordering. I suppose it is implying that
.premium(0) is “better” than
.premium(1)? It shows one of the pitfalls here, I suppose, where you can unthinkingly mix an enum ordered from best to worst with an associated type ordered from smallest to biggest or dimmest to brightest and get an unnatural order.