[Patch] First bits of the algo merge

[Paolo Carlini]

Howard Hinnant wrote:

> Ah ok.  I'm coming around.  Just had to step out and jump-start my 
> brain is all. ;-)
>
> Imho, and as far as I know for now, B and C are both better than A 
> from the viewpoint of supporting proxy iterators (which can be 
> conforming input iterators).  B is better than C from a maintenance 
> and reliability point of view (gets rid of source code duplication, 
> halving the chance for bugs).  If no one can show that B is worse 
> than C from a conformance, or even usability point of view, then I 
> think B is the clear winner.  However it would be irresponsible of me 
> to not try and discredit B.  But unfortunately I have a bias that I 
> hope I can't, as I think its other advantages over C are 
> significant.  I will do my best to not let my bias get in the way of 
> my research.

Ok, 100% agreed. And, sorry, I didn't get immediately your, Popperian I
would call it, or scientific, spirit in trying to prove B wrong ;)

> But since you asked for other improvement ideas... ;-)
>
> Just kidding.  I've probably done enough damage for one day, at least 
> in this area.  I am about to suggest a tiny patch in a different 
> area... (stdexcept for the incurably curious).

Looking forward...

Paolo.