From: Olaf van der Spek (olafvdspek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-13 08:43:52
On 3/29/06, Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Isn't aligned when you have unaligned just an optimization?
> Yep. I personally haven't had a need for aligned, but Darin Adler did, and I
> respect his judgement.
> >> and non-POD flavors were requested.
> > How does POD apply to this?
> In theory, only POD types have strong enough layout guarantees to be
> portable across I/O operations. In practice, a type that is otherwise POD
> but has constructors and a destructor is in fact portable, but some people
> are scared to use such types because some compiler down the road might add
> some extra cruft.
What's a better situation, no libary or a non-perfect library?
> I do too, but it takes time and I guess no one had that.
> I just took a look at the internals of my own roll-you-own classes, and I'd
> be embarrassed to post them since they are really just retreaded C code. C
> style casts and that sort of thing. Originally written in 1985! They are
> also just holders, without arithmetic operations. A Boost-quality set would
> provide full arithmetic functionality.
What kind of arithmetic operations would you need?
> Open source software is very user driven. If no users care enough to do it
> themselves, or fund someone else to do it, it doesn't happen until a
> developer comes along willing to spend the time/effort.
But it doesn't have to be a single individual.
I think with some coordination it can be done a lot faster by a group.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk