It makes very little sense to compare find_if for set and map with
find_if for linear data structures, since that is not the intended
use case for set and map. Until we have a better comparison of
associative data structures ready, I do not want to present this
data as it could be misleading.
Initially, this commit was supposed to provide a slightly
optimized version of `find_if` for `integer_sequence`.
Unfortunately, benchmarking did not show any significant
difference, and so the current implementation will be kept.
Benchmark data is here: http://pastebin.com/t3M8YwzD
Also slightly improve the benchmarking framework:
- Allow passing an additional environment to benchmarks
- Add the directory of the .erb.cpp file to the include path
- Output stdout when a compilation error occurs
Specifically,
(1) We now benchmark with fusion::list too
(2) We now document our methodology for forcing the evaluation of algorithms
Note that we still use `as_list` and `as_vector` to force the evaluation
of algorithms instead of using e.g. `for_each`. This is because we want
to compare apples with apples, and for this we need to get a sequence of
computed values, not only for_each over the view. The disclaimer in the
tutorial saying "Fusion might encourage a different design" takes care
of warning people about the fact that we're not necessarily using
idiomatic Fusion, but not need to benchmark unfairly to try to
account for that.
