From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-25 13:56:40
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> In short, your simple proposal would, I think, be a major improvement.
>> However, it is incomplete, it doesn't address Robert's constraints,
>> and it imposes a bit more work than necessary on archive authors.
> Let's start from here.
> Why is it incomplete?
It doesn't handle std::vector; you yourself admitted that would
require additional code.
> How could it address Robert's constraints less than your proposal,
> which is more invasive?
How can you possibly say that my proposal is more invasive? How many
times do I have to remind everyone that I'm not proposing to make any
changes to the serialization library? I'm really shocked to hear this
coming from you, especially after my posts to this list earlier today.
Are you referring to some hidden invasion I haven't considered?
> What additional work does it impose on archive authors?
Many overloads required for all optimizable types on vc6. No
possibility of factoring common functionality (vector/builtin-array
support) into a common base class. For a start.
-- 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