Boost logo

Boost :

From: Ian McCulloch (ianmcc_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-26 22:05:20


I needed a trivial patch to get the code to compile with gcc 3.4:

diff bitwise_oarchive_adaptor.hpp~ bitwise_oarchive_adaptor.hpp
< override(ar, t,

>     override(ar, t, typename
However, I have the same problem that Dave apparantly has, is the demo
supposed to do anything useful?  I guess not, because the 'override'
function that is the basis of the extension mechanism seems to only allow
saving, the loading half seems to be missing.  It also seems to be a
strange choice for a demonstration.  Is the bitwise_?archive_adaptor
supposed to be useful for anything other than a native binary archive?  In
what sense is it then an 'adaptor' ?
I spent a little while looking over the design, and thought a bit how to
implement various archives (array optimizations, MPI, MPI-IO, netCDF, etc,
and various types, arrays, matrices, multi_array and so on) using that
basic framework.  After I cleaned the vomit off the floor (so to speak), I
started writing a comparison between what the 'ideal' version of Dave's
proposal would allow (including the minimal intrusive changes that Dave
hinted were on offer - although the thread never got as far as describing
them before being apparantly rejected outright), and what your proposal
would allow.
Then I realized there is absolutely no point doing this.  Many of the points
I was going to make have already been covered, in some cases two, three,
four or more times, in the previous threads, and if anyone was going to
change their mind they surely would have long ago.  Besides, since both
proposals are "non-intrusive", it makes no difference which proposal is
actually implemented - indeed, both could probably live side by side if
someone were sufficiently masochistic.  The impact on the current
serialization library will be identical in each case.  So, I will do us
both a favour and save yet another trip around the merry-go-round.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at