In the 2002 reference grammar by Huddleston and Pullum (et al.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL), Anita Mittwoch and Rodney Huddleston and Peter Collins talk about "the doubly remote conditional construction" on page 754:
The doubly remote conditional construction
i. If you had told me you were busy I would have come tomorrow. <-- [past-future]
ii. If you had come tomorrow you would have seen the carnival. <-- [future-future]
iii. If your father had been alive today he would have been distraught to see his business disintegrating like this. <-- [present-present]
(I've marked some verbal clusters in bold to indicate the doubly remote construction. I've also added the brackets to indicate the respective temporal situation of the protasis and apodosis as describe in CGEL. Note that in [i ] the verb cluster "had told" is not a doubly remote construction but a past remote construction where the past tense of "had" expresses modal remoteness and the perfect construction temporal meaning.)
The authors go on to say:
Where the time is future the doubly remote construction indicates not only that P and Q are false, but also that the possibility of the future situation being actualised has already been foreclosed by a past event. In [i-ii ], for example, it might be that I or you have come today, with the assumption that that precludes our coming again tomorrow.
In [i ] and [ii ], let's assume that I and you have come today, respectively, and therefore that I and you cannot come again tomorrow, which is exactly the same situation as describe as an example in CGEL. In this situation, is it possible not to use the doubly remote constructions as follows?
[i' ] If you had told me you were busy I would come tomorrow.
[ii' ] If you came tomorrow you would see the carnival.