[patch] simplify <bits/uses_allocator.h>

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 02/06/14 00:46 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
>Some of the changes remove the explicit access-specifier (public) from
>base classes, such as
>
>: public false_type
>=>
>: false_type
>
>In the affected examples this does not introduce a change of meaning
>(because the classes are declared as structs), but my understanding
>had been in the past that base class access specifiers should always
>been provided in gcc code bases to make the code robust against
>potential refactoring.
>
>Is this simply an incorrect understanding of mine that is not based by
>the gcc coding styles? I thought that Paolo taught me the
>"explicit-access-style", but I might err.

I consider them to be redundant clutter, but I didn't realise we had
such a rule, so I'm happy to put the access-specifiers back.