From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-27 16:00:09
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>> - assuming that it can be provided without negative
>> consequences for the current code base
> All the current archives would have to be modified in some way
> to add this function and its default implementation.
A good proposal should not require any changes to existing archives that
don't need to take advantage of the array optimization. The default behavior
of the library ought to remain the same.
>> or existing archive formats.
> that would remain to be seen. Verifying this could be difficult.
We could add tests for that. For most archives that implement the array
functionality (including the binary archives, if we decide to enhance them),
the optimization should be just that, an optimization; it should produce the
same results as before, just in less time.
I understand now that the task is not as trivial as it first seemed. But if
we were to propose something along these lines that satisfies the above
constraints, would you be willing to consider it for inclusion?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk