On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 06:34:22PM +0200, Ian McCulloch wrote:
Hmm. If you want '&' notation, then why not
ar & make_array(some_array);
[snip]
If you are going to make comparisons as to what the resulting code looks like, you should at least compare against code that actually does the same thing as what Mattias proposes.
Naturally one should compare apples to apples. Still seems to me that I was. Matthias argued succintly against putting a save_array() in the interface that archives expose to their clients: Matthias Troyer wrote:
- the user has to remember to always call save_array(ar,m_vi) instead of just serializing the vector directly. This is quite error-prone and will easily lead to sub-optimal code.
(see also neighboring material back in the thread). Matthias' proposal (as I understand it, and which I agree with) involves save/load_array(), but not where the user of an archive would see them. These calls to save/load_array() would be from the serialization library to the archive, not where somebody writing a routine to serialize their class could see them. -t