sso tradeoffs

[Paolo Carlini]

Howard Hinnant wrote:

> At the risk of arguing with myself, my above comment about having the 
> language always move instead of copy exceptions would not be 
> sufficient to relax the nothrow requirement on the <stdexcept> 
> classes.  After sleeping on it I realized that users may well have 
> built exceptions in advance, perhaps stored them in a container, and 
> are counting on a nothrow copy to safely throw them.

I see... In order to avoid to former risk ;) I would suggest the
following: let's open a Bugzilla [meta-bug] about sso_string, and let's
change the existing open PRs involving basic_string to depend on it.
Then, we can add to the audit trail of the [meta-bug] whatever we find
along the way, explored designs, red herrings, benchmarks, additional
desiderata, everything...

Paolo.