From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-24 11:34:46
On Nov 24, 2005, at 5:24 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> To be fair, I haven't done the analysis: are you sure your approach
>> doesn't lead to an MxN problem (for M archives and N types that need
>> to be serialized)?
>
> Yes, it does, in theory. Reality isn't that bad. For every M, the
> archive
> author has already added the necessary overloads for every
> "fundamental"
> type that supports optimized array operations. This leaves a number of
> user-defined types n (because the number is smaller than N), times M.
>
> In addition, even if the author of an UDT hasn't provided an
> overload for a
> particular archive A, the user can add it himself. The m*n number
> for a
> particular codebase is bounded, and the overloads are typically one-
> liners.
What if the number n is infinite (e.g. all possible structs
consisting only of fundamental types), which is what Robert calls
"bitwise serializable"?
Matthias