From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-03-13 04:28:15
Matthew Vogt <mattvogt_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> The serialization library is a beautiful example of how a rejection
>> ended up being very positive for the library and for Boost. Whether
>> or not that experience can be replicated is another question. It was
>> certainly not easy for Robert.
> If my hazy recollections are right, the initial serialization library review
> brought up various criticisms of the library, which had been solved by other
> libraries, or for which useful techniques were known and could be applied.
> This library seems to differ - it appears that there are criticisms
> of the library's performance characteristics, but no-one is pointing
> to alternative libraries that solve these problems (albeit they may
> be deficient in other ways). Similarly, I haven't noticed any
> suggestions for specific techniques that might be used to improve
> the performance of the current submission.
To the contrary, in previous threads I have posted several examples of
small FSM libraries with either O(1) or O(#outgoing transitions)
dispatch. Alexander Nasonov has also posted some examples using a
very different approach.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk