From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-18 13:36:26
On Sep 18, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:
> Matthias Troyer wrote:
>> I am a bit perplexed by your mail, since it is an identical copy of a
>> private e-mail you sent me two weeks ago, even before the review
>> started.
>
> I realize this - its just that I thought that someone else might
> have some other observations to add on the subject.
OK, thanks for explaining.
>
>> The comments of several reviewers, which were initially skeptical
>> about our use of the serialization library in a high performance
>> context, but whose concerns vanished when they saw the array
>> optimizations, should show you that it was not only me who needs
>> these optimizations.
>
> I don't object to the array optimizations per se, I'm interested
> in seeing if there's a way to do that doesn't hard code coupling
> between particular pairs of archives and datatypes into the
> the original archive classes. Actually this question applies to the
> the modifications in binary_?archive so its a little off topic - but
> still related.
>
>> Watch out that there are more such types: multi_array, ublas and MTL
>> vectors and matrices, ... With the array wrapper we have an elegant
>> solution to handle also these other types. Since we have discussed
>> this topic many times on the list over the past year I will not
>> comment further for now.
>
> I think this is the part I'm still not seeing. the changes to
> binary_?archive
> include specializations for std::valarray, std::vector and native C++
> arrays.
Can you please show me these specializations? I do not see any except
for a std::vector overload in the base class which is needed for
special reasons and only for this class.
valarray, C-array, as well as other classes like ublas arrays and
matrices and multi_array can be serialized just using the array
wrapper and will not need any modification to the archives.
Matthias