[patch] Preprocessorised tr1::tuple

[Paolo Carlini]

Chris Jefferson wrote:

> Unfortunatly, unlike Douglas' function code, I feel that there are 
> just too many things that have to change in the tuple header depending 
> on length, so trying to write the code in the style he wrote, while 
> much faster would be much harder to read / maintain...

About this: I'm wondering whether we should actually have our own 
pre-processor library. Agreed, the applications are different, maybe 
some may compile faster with an ad-hoc solution, but I believe we are at 
risk of duplicating very similar solutions. What I'm missing is an 
estimate of how *many* other tr1 facilities need pre-proprocessor 
"magic"... Anyone got a figure?

Paolo.