From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-21 17:25:27
On 21.09.2006, at 16:34, David Abrahams wrote:
> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Matthias Troyer wrote:
>>> OK, since I also do not get paid for this, and your criticism is
>>> based on a change that you yourself proposed on June 4th, my
>>> is to stop the discussion right here, go back to the state of June
>>> 4th, where our optimizations were completely decoupled from your
>>> archives. That way you will be able to implement the array
>>> optimization for the binary archive in the way you like best, and we
>>> have our own way. Please confirm and I will do that.
>> Honestly, I don't remember the state of things 4 June. And
>> I don't remember the character of my complaints. I presume
>> that going back would just substitute the original complaints
>> for the current ones.
>> I've stated my current reservations. I wanted to make them
>> known in case someone else might share them or others.
>> It seems that I'm the only one who has these views - a
>> familiar and comfortable position for me..
> For the record, the difficulty is not your iconoclastic viewpoint,
> which is almost always useful. The problem we're having is that what
> you're complaining about is a situation created, and of whose merit
> many of us were convinced, by you.
Dave, actually in this case it was partially a slightly different
situation. We had made a design which was non-intrusive on the
archive classes, and thus had Robert's original binary_archive and
our array-optimized wrapper array::binary_archive in a separate
namespace. On June 4th Robert invited me to merge them since at that
time he thought that it would make sense moving the array
optimization into one of the archive base classes. In the meantime it
seems that Robert does not like all aspects of that idea, or of our
specific implementation, and I thus offered to go back to having an
array-optimized binary archive separately from he non-optimized ones.
Robert, you did not have any complaints on June 4th, but just asked
me to add our optimizations directly to your binary archive. If you
feel more comfortable without this, we can undo this at any time
since it will not break any existing archives. If however, as you
write, you feel you can live with what we have done then we can leave
it as it is and I can certainly take over responsibility for
maintaining the array optimizations and any further extensions to it
that might be desired.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk