On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
On Jun 15, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 2:43 AM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
On Jun 14, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
On Sat, Jun 14, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
On Jun 13, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
The question I have is why is this function commented out in the 1.35.0 release?
We commented this out since we found out just before the release that this optimization prevents tracking of vectors. 1.36 will implement this in a slightly different way, which will enable some more optimizations.
Okay, sounds good to me.
It is on the trunk now
Wow, that was quick. Thanks again Matthias!
Let me try and convince people over here to use the latest in the trunk.
If you don't need tracking of vectors you can just uncomment the commented out parts in 1.35.0
This sounds like a good plan too. When you say the version in 1.35.0 cannot track vectors, does that mean we cannot merely tell the difference between a serialized array and a serialized vector? I'm a little lost as to why there should be a difference between a normally serialized/deserialized vector and a static array (T[]). More precisely, a serialized array should be deserializable to a vector and a serialized vector should be deserializable to a statically (appropriately) sized array as well. Or is there a deeper reason why this behavior isn't acceptable? -- Dean Michael C. Berris Software Engineer, Friendster, Inc.