From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-25 14:31:04
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Also, following Dave's proposal none of your archives is touched, but
>>> instead additional faster ones are provided.
> This wasn't clear to me from my reading of the proposal.
Regardless of whether it _was_ clear, can you now accept that there is
**no proposal to modify the serialization library** ?
As stated several times, we presented the simplest thing that we think
can address the problem **without modifying the existing library**.
Even thinking of that code as a proposal is a little bit wrong. We'll
need that code (or something very much like it) in order to provide
fast array serialization. We're _going_ to provide what's in "the
proposal" (or something very much like it) one way or another, either
within Boost or elsewhere. We could put that code in our own library,
which we could submit for a separate Boost review, or we could publish
We took special pains to conform as closely as possible to your
expectations and requirements for code that could be part of the
serialization library, but only to make it as easy as possible for you
to understand what we're doing. After going to such great lengths to
be understood it's very disappointing to have failed so miserably. I
hope you can help rescue our efforts by making a commensurate effort
to receive our postings as they are intended, rather than
as... something else.
-- 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