manual patch (again)

[Dave Korn]

On 22/02/2010 20:53, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Thanks. If nobody beats me, I will apply it later today. However, this
> change doesn't look 100% correct to me:
> 
> -  As much as we would like to avoid uses of stdlibc++ within our 
> +  As much as possible we would like to avoid uses of stdlibc++ within our 
>    instrumentation library, containers such as unordered_map are very 
> 
> maybe the current English isn't beautiful, 

  The current wording is perfect idiomatic English, there's no need to change
it.  If it were to be reworded, the suggestion isn't quite correct w.r.t.
word-ordering: it should be "Although we would like to avoid uses of stdlibc++
within our instrumentation library as much as possible, containers..."

  Of course nobody's mentioned so far that it should be libstdc++, not
stdlibc++ at all!

    cheers,
      DaveK