"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Also, following Dave's proposal none of your archives is touched, but instead additional faster ones are provided.
This wasn't clear to me from my reading of the proposal.
Regardless of whether it _was_ clear, can you now accept that there is **no proposal to modify the serialization library** ? As stated several times, we presented the simplest thing that we think can address the problem **without modifying the existing library**. Even thinking of that code as a proposal is a little bit wrong. We'll need that code (or something very much like it) in order to provide fast array serialization. We're _going_ to provide what's in "the proposal" (or something very much like it) one way or another, either within Boost or elsewhere. We could put that code in our own library, which we could submit for a separate Boost review, or we could publish it separately. We took special pains to conform as closely as possible to your expectations and requirements for code that could be part of the serialization library, but only to make it as easy as possible for you to understand what we're doing. After going to such great lengths to be understood it's very disappointing to have failed so miserably. I hope you can help rescue our efforts by making a commensurate effort to receive our postings as they are intended, rather than as... something else. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com