[Patch] Remove workaround for copy_backward

[Matt Austern]

On Sep 28, 2003, at 10:41 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Here is my take on the template constructror issue.  It is out of
> question to add a dummy argument, because:
>  (1) it an ABI breaking -- I do not have a strong opinion here;
>  (2) it makes us potentially accept "invalid" constructs -- even though
>      it may a harmless one.  For some reasons, people tend to 
> use/depend
>      on things we think harmless; I'm pretty sure we'll get questions
>      like: "why does not vector<> use by nth argument?".
> It think the dispatcher does a pretty good job here, even though I
> think it should not depend overload resolution.
>
> There are probably other components that can benefit from enable-if,
> though.

The obvious answer to objection #2 is to use enable-if internally.  That
makes constructors more of a nuisance, but even then we can use the
same trick we're using already: dispatch to a helper function that does
all the real work.

			--Matt