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

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-12 08:58:42

On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:21 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> I don't think anyone is suggesting that we use size_t;
>
> Acually, that's what I would use.  I still haven't heard a valid  
> reason
> why it shouldn't be used.  I'm not saying there isn't one - but
> no one has stated one.
>
>
>> int has the
>> same problem, after all.  I thought Matthias wass using a
>> variable-length representation, but on inspection it looks like he's
>> just using a "strong typedef" around std::size_t,
>
> I for one am curious as to the motivation for ths.

That's easy to answer: to achieve separation between archive format  
and serialization, which is, I believe what you advocate. Leave it to  
the archive to decide how to serialize sizes of collections - it  
could be different than serializing the integer type used for  
std::sized_t

>> which should work
>> adequately for the purposes we're discussing.
>
> well, so would size_t for what has been dicussed so far.

size_t has problems with portable binary archives.