From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-26 20:20:10
"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> a) its short The total (actually one half - the save part)
> implementation consists of 220 lines of code including comments.
> b) it doesn't require any alterations in the library.
> c) it doesn't require any alterations of existing serialization
> This completes my example.
I didn't have time to do a deep analysis of what appears to be a very
intricate design, but:
1. Assuming that you meant a successful test to return a status code
of zero the test you posted fails on every compiler I can find.
2. Is this the promised simplification of the design we posted in
http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/11/97002.php? If so, by
what measure is your approach a simplification?
I actually don't want to get into a discussion of which non-intrusive
design is best. The social and code interoperability dynamics of any
non-intrusive design are the same, and that's really what I want to
discuss. Please let me know when you're ready to talk about that.
-- 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