c++0x vs. tr1 type_traits, round 1

[Paolo Carlini]

Hi Benjamin,

> Ah. So they are. Serves me right for going on R1. of this paper. Just 
> so we are both looking at the same thing for future discussions, I'm 
> going off of N2255=07-0115. Sound right?

Definitely, but only the final version of it, Howard tweaked it a bit 
after getting the number. Anyway, the same text will appear soon in the 
updated working paper.

> Yes. There is enough difference that
>
> 1) I don't think mixing C++0x and TR1 is wise
> 2) I begin to appreciate the dry humor of Howard's "minor 
> modifications"  title...
>
> Thanks for the more complete audit.

I'd like to help much more, but I'm in the middle of the 
__is_convertible_to work + yesterday finally committed the last tweaks 
to __has_nothrow_assign and right now I'm finally changing 
tr1/type_traits to exploit it and the other already available front-end 
traits...

Anyway, I think we are on the same page, generally: those changes are 
not minor and we have to figure out a strategy scaling well also to 
cases of vastly different facilities (like random, even if, as discussed 
privately, we can use the same underlying algorithms in both cases, but 
that is another matter). About the details, at the moment I lack a 
sufficiently accurate picture, I'd like to ear Doug again, while I find 
the time to deepen my own understanding...

Paolo.