Re: [Patch] First bits of the algo merge

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@suse.de> writes:

| 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).

Let me clarify.  I'm not dismisive of improvements.  I'm all for it.
I'm just worried that things get complicated in the implementation of
the initial idea of simplifyig the current implementation.

I hope that in the next years, we'll have more V3 maintainers -- or
some "old timers" like me would retire and leave the place for
"youngers".  We don't want them to spend hours after hours figuring
why the simplest ideas weren't expressed simply, when attempting
to fix a bug.

-- Gaby