RE: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review ]

From: Iain K.Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-28 13:42:06

> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Robert Ramey
> Sent: 28 November 2002 17:49

> >From: Matthias Troyer <troyer_at_[hidden]>
>

>
> So archiving perfectly compatible with the practice of
> typedefing int32_t
> etc.  but doesn't require it. This is as it should be.  There
> is not nor
> should there be any notion of predefined typedefs in the
> archive.  It is
> not the function of the library to enforce a particular coding style
> but rather to be compatible with the widest array of practices.

Understood.

But C 99 standardised the int*_t types and in anticipation that C++ 0x
might do the same, boost has them in the integer library ( cstdint.hpp ).

Two suggestions *I think* have been made.

1) that the serialisation library recommends to users who want portable
archives, should use the boost::int*_t types instead of short, int, etc.

2) That the serialisation library could detect the size of integral types
being serialised and use the correct int*_t types instead of short, int etc.

/ikh