Subject: Re: [boost] [serialization] string serialization
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-03 19:16:48
Nope, It's not intentional.
I don't remember why it is the way it is. Collections evolved
to become more efficient and in the process collection_size_type
came into being. Since std::string was already primitive and had
a special implemention there hasn't been any motivation to mess
with it. I'm not even that enthusiastic about colllection_size_type.
Turns out that each std collection has its own size_type. So this
makes thing even more confusing.
It's the way it is because there was no obvious better choice.
Nikolay Mladenov wrote:
> How should I understand this?
> as "Nope, it should be fixed",
> or "Nope, deal with it"
> or is it simply "get lost"?
> This "simple" fact causes incompatibility problems between 64 and 32
> bit archives.
> On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Nope, it's just a fact.
>> Robert Ramey
>> Nikolay Mladenov wrote:
>>> I the basic_binary_iprimitive.ipp (and I suppose other files) the
>>> size of the strings is serialized as
>>> std::size_t and not as serialization::collection_size_type.
>>> Is that intentional?
>>> Nikolay Mladenov
>>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
>> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk