Re: [boost] [serialization] use of unsigned int instead of size_type

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-11 16:46:45

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> I was expecting to see your enhancements for arrays to get
>>> included and for collection_size (or whatever)  to be part of this.
>>> I'm not sure what status of this is and/or if it conflicts with the
>>> recent feature
>>> freeze.
>>
>> IMO the size_type change should be considered a bugfix, as it was not
>> possible to portably serialize collections without it.
>
> The change is not trivial. Using a size_t typedef means that program A can 
> write an unsigned int and program B can read an unsigned long. This will 
> appear to work at first because the serialization library doesn't include 
> archives where this is significant. Yet. 

I don't know exactly how to interpret your remarks.  It sounds like
you're describing the status quo here, which would seem to argue that
the change is necessary.

For the record, I didn't claim it was a trivial change, only that it
should be considered a bugfix and not a new feature.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com