Matthew Vogt <mattvogt@warpmail.net> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
The serialization library is a beautiful example of how a rejection ended up being very positive for the library and for Boost. Whether or not that experience can be replicated is another question. It was certainly not easy for Robert.
If my hazy recollections are right, the initial serialization library review brought up various criticisms of the library, which had been solved by other libraries, or for which useful techniques were known and could be applied.
This library seems to differ - it appears that there are criticisms of the library's performance characteristics, but no-one is pointing to alternative libraries that solve these problems (albeit they may be deficient in other ways). Similarly, I haven't noticed any suggestions for specific techniques that might be used to improve the performance of the current submission.
To the contrary, in previous threads I have posted several examples of small FSM libraries with either O(1) or O(#outgoing transitions) dispatch. Alexander Nasonov has also posted some examples using a very different approach. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com