"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
In short, your simple proposal would, I think, be a major improvement. However, it is incomplete, it doesn't address Robert's constraints, and it imposes a bit more work than necessary on archive authors.
Let's start from here.
Why is it incomplete?
It doesn't handle std::vector; you yourself admitted that would require additional code.
How could it address Robert's constraints less than your proposal, which is more invasive?
How can you possibly say that my proposal is more invasive? How many times do I have to remind everyone that I'm not proposing to make any changes to the serialization library? I'm really shocked to hear this coming from you, especially after my posts to this list earlier today. Are you referring to some hidden invasion I haven't considered?
What additional work does it impose on archive authors?
Many overloads required for all optimizable types on vc6. No possibility of factoring common functionality (vector/builtin-array support) into a common base class. For a start. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com