Re: Fwd: Re: [Patch] Remove workaround for copy_backward

[Douglas Gregor <gregod at cs dot rpi dot edu>]

On Sunday 28 September 2003 11:13 am, you wrote:
> I was not referring to the fact that our compiler could handle that
> idiom or not.  I was talking about the set of places that could
> effectively benefit from that idiom.  That needs auditing.

I didn't realize which library "the library" was. It's not an audit, but grep 
for "dispatch" and "__iterator_category" to get a rough estimate of the 
places where enable_if could be useful. There are many of them, but most of 
them fall into a few simple categories (e.g., whether it is integral or not, 
whether it is a random access iterator or not).

> | Compare it to what libstdc++ currently does. I can tell you that it
> | doesn't fit in two extra lines of code.
>
> Doug, do me a favor:  I understrand the benefit of the enable-if
> idiom.
>
> -- Gaby

This is a public forum. You know the benefit of enable_if and I know the 
benefit of enable_if, but can we both be sure that everyone here knows it? 

	Doug