We could introduce two more options:

• .missing().highest(): consider a missing value as the highest/farthest values of the result set, putting it last in ascending order or first in descending order.

• .missing().lowest(): consider a missing value as the lowest/nearest values of the result set, putting it first in ascending order or last in descending order.

As a workaround the user can now simulate these two options just by using missing().use(…) and providing there a very large/small value. Or by using missing().last() or missing().first() depending on the sort order.