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
>> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk