Re: [Patch] First bits of the algo merge

[Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>chris jefferson <caj@cs.york.ac.uk> writes:
>
>| Then this proxy iterator doesn't work, so we aren't breaking anything
>| that worked before...
>
>Right.  All things considered, I would like to see simple things simple.
>If a customer wants convoluted things that could not have passed with
>standard assumptions, sorry.  
>
>I'm more concerned about standard uses that we might break
>unintentionally than supporting extended convoluted corner cases.  For
>that, we need simple things expressed simply.
>  
>
Ok, by now I know your philosophy ;)

Therefore, my plan would be as follows: for mainline, we continue with
the merge as planned, therefore using the simple version of
__ops::equal_to & co. I'll post patches during the next days (+
corrections to the concept checks as we go, of course).

For v7-branch, I will commit the more sophisticated approach suggested
by Howard which maybe will turn out to be useful sometime in the future
(doesn't break binary compatibility or anything obvious, that is sure).

I hope nobody disagree with the plan.

Paolo.