[v3 PATCH] LWG 2766, LWG 2749

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 17/11/16 23:38 +0200, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
>The first patch does everything but the container adaptor parts (which
>are wrong in the p/r) and the tuple part (which is icky). The second
>part does the tuple parts, and needs some serious RFC. I know
>it's ugly as sin, but it works. I don't think we should try to teach
>our tuple to give the right answer for is_constructible etc., because
>the last attempt at it broke boost and would break reasonable existing
>code in addition to just boost - such things are not Stage 3 material,
>imnsho.

I agree, but if we'd just refused to support such undefined behaviour
in stage 1 we wouldn't now be in a position of saying we can't change
it in stage 3.

Oh well, I'll review this ASAP.