|
Boost : |
From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-24 11:34:46
On Nov 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> To be fair, I haven't done the analysis: are you sure your approach
>> doesn't lead to an MxN problem (for M archives and N types that need
>> to be serialized)?
>
> Yes, it does, in theory. Reality isn't that bad. For every M, the
> archive
> author has already added the necessary overloads for every
> "fundamental"
> type that supports optimized array operations. This leaves a number of
> user-defined types n (because the number is smaller than N), times M.
>
> In addition, even if the author of an UDT hasn't provided an
> overload for a
> particular archive A, the user can add it himself. The m*n number
> for a
> particular codebase is bounded, and the overloads are typically one-
> liners.
What if the number n is infinite (e.g. all possible structs
consisting only of fundamental types), which is what Robert calls
"bitwise serializable"?
Matthias
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk