Robert Ramey wrote:
Sohail Somani wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
Sohail Somani wrote:
Boost serialization currently does not elegantly handle forward compatibility This would be doable if someone wanted to invest the effort. And this would not be a huge effort at least in comparison to the efforts required to implement a lot of the other features of the library. How would this be done (without breaking backward compatibility)? It is kind of late so admittedly it might be totally obvious in the morning.
I also notice you have not mentioned anything about the 70 billion dollar bailout for the serialization library and spreading the wealth. I assume the cheque's in the mail.
I purposely overlooked that comment. It seemed to be an attempt at some sort of criticism. It's absolutely amazing to me how much I've been criticised (many times personally) for making this library. I choose to interpret this as acknowledgement (and perhaps resentment) of its success. It's my policy to ignore such comments which almost always results in the least amount of time wasted. Occasionally this doesn't work so I have to waste more time. But generally this policy works well for me.
Robert Ramey
I know you get a lot of questions about things that are clearly addressed in the serialization documentation (from myself too a few times). I've even heard you called "that RTFM guy on the boost lists" a couple times :) I couldn't handle maintaining such a widely-used library myself and would like to express my gratitude for tackling such a complex problem free of charge and creating something that has been very useful to us.