From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-25 19:24:05
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "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 has been surmised, I did overlook that fact that although certain
> things had the same names the were in different namespaces. So
> that will resolve some confusion.
> OK that's fine.
> Now my question is why do you need anything from me?
>> As stated several times, we presented the simplest thing that we think
>> can address the problem **without modifying the existing library**.
> Ahh - I think it can be simpler. That's the rub.
If it were simpler it would require a little more work from archive
authors, and we're not going to waste any breath on this list trying
to convince you of that. But if it turns out I'm wrong about that,
your simplification of our design would certainly be welcome.
> So I see no conflict here at all. In fact I see this as complimentary
> to my goal of narrowing my area of responsability as it regards the
> Of course, some people will use the facilities to undertake efforts
> which I consider misguided. I'm not hugely happy about that but I
> just have to live with it - and who knows I might be wrong. But
> since those people are investing their own effort its their call and
> I'm fine with it.
Good, then maybe tomorrow we'll be able to talk about the effects of
Matthias and I going our own way with this. With or without your
simplification it will be the same story.
>> 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.
> Well, I concede I've misunderstood some of the things you're doing.
> Shortly, I'll post some code that I believe addresses all your design
> goals in a much simpler and effective way. That may be helpful
> in resolving this misunderstanding.
I doubt it. Whether or not you can simplify the design has no real
effect on the core issue.
-- 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