Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-27 06:57:46

Next message: Hamish Mackenzie: "RE: [boost] Re: AW: Re: AW: Sockets"
Previous message: ds: "[boost] Re: here's patch Re: bug report: missing check for__SUNPRO_CC,regex builderror underSun Forte 6u2 Solaris 8"
In reply to: Matthias Troyer: "Re: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost with consistent quoting]"
Next in thread: Michael Walter: "Re[2]: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost with consistent quoting]"

From: "Matthias Troyer" <troyer_at_[hidden]>
>
> If a library user wants his archives to be portable he has to use
> int8_t, int16_t, etc.. for all data integral types that he wants to
> portably serialize.

I don't think so. First, these types aren't portable. Second, I don't see
why it is required to use them in order to guarantee portability.

Next message: Hamish Mackenzie: "RE: [boost] Re: AW: Re: AW: Sockets"
Previous message: ds: "[boost] Re: here's patch Re: bug report: missing check for__SUNPRO_CC,regex builderror underSun Forte 6u2 Solaris 8"
In reply to: Matthias Troyer: "Re: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost with consistent quoting]"
Next in thread: Michael Walter: "Re[2]: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost with consistent quoting]"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk