From: troy d. straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-16 12:47:30
On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 06:34:22PM +0200, Ian McCulloch wrote:
> Hmm. If you want '&' notation, then why not
> ar & make_array(some_array);
> If you are going to make comparisons as to what the resulting code
> looks like, you should at least compare against code that actually
> does the same thing as what Mattias proposes.
Naturally one should compare apples to apples. Still seems to me that
I was. Matthias argued succintly against putting a save_array() in
the interface that archives expose to their clients:
Matthias Troyer wrote:
> - the user has to remember to always call save_array(ar,m_vi) instead
> of just serializing the vector directly. This is quite error-prone
> and will easily lead to sub-optimal code.
(see also neighboring material back in the thread). Matthias'
proposal (as I understand it, and which I agree with) involves
save/load_array(), but not where the user of an archive would see
them. These calls to save/load_array() would be from the
serialization library to the archive, not where somebody writing a
routine to serialize their class could see them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk