Upgrade core library version 0.82.1 -> 0.82.2
Merge pull request #847 from realm/ks-use-core-ver-0.82.2

Upgrade core library version 0.82.1 -> 0.82.2
create tableview on demand
make sure new tableview is attached
enum cleanup
fix for enumerator test
added test, fix for re-sorting
changelog
explicit query copy
Add better tests for querying RLMArrays from queries
disable failing test in XCode6
Merge pull request #839 from realm/al-lazy-query

Perform queries on demand
Use std::unique_ptr to hold pointers to C++ types

Cuts down on cleanup code and fixes a memory leak when creating a shared
group throws an exception.
Implement read-only realms

No docs changes because the implementation matches what the docs previously
claimed.

Some assorted design decisions made in the process:

1. refresh and addNotificationBlock are considered "mutating" methods and
disallowed on read-only realms on the grounds that they make no sense.

2. RLMRealm is split into RLMMutableRealm and RLMReadOnlyRealm. This is purely
an implementation detail to slightly simplify the implementation and slightly
improve performance (no checks for the readOnly property). It could be
beneficial to expose this separation in the interface as they do have different
APIs, but I didn't really feel it was worth it.

3. Missing tables in read-only realms are simply treated as if they were empty.
I wanted to make extra columns in tables or missing columns with default values
treated similarly (so that you'd be able to open any realm file that either
matches the schema or can be auto-migrated to the schema), but that'd require
creating separate accessor classes and is far more complexity than it's worth.

4. No attempt is made at handling the case of a read-only RLMRealm in one
process and a mutable RLMRealm in another process sharing a realm file. There's
no easy solution, and more complex solutions (like putting a lock file in /tmp)
should be done in the core and are not very high priority.

5. Realm files must already exist to be openable in read-only mode. Treating a
nonexistent realm as an empty realm is theoretically doable, but would be
awkward (and kinda dumb).