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

From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-12 09:00:19

On Feb 12, 2006, at 2:59 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>>> Consider an archive where unsigned int and unsigned long have a
>>> different internal representation. When a value of a size_t type is
>>> written on platform A, where size_t == unsigned int, platform B,
>>> where size_t == unsigned long, won't be able to read the file.
>>
>> Sure, but I don't see what that has to do with the ambiguity in
>> overload resolution you're pointing at above.
>
> Not ambiguity, just that different overloads will be called on  
> different
> platforms.
>
>> I don't think anyone is suggesting that we use size_t; int has a
>> similar problem, after all.  I thought Matthias was using a
>> variable-length representation, but on inspection it looks like he's
>> just using a "strong typedef" around std::size_t, which should work
>> adequately for the purposes we're discussing.
>
> A strong typedef should work, if all archives implement its  
> serialization.

As far as I understand there is a default implementation of  
serialization for
strong typedefs, which just serializes the underlying type. Only  
archives needing
different behavior will have to implement its serialization.

Matthias