Re: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost withconsistent quoting]

2002-11-30 Thread David Abrahams
Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 02:06 AM, David Abrahams wrote: Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In any case the library user should be reminded that short, int and long are never portable Of course they are perfectly portable! I

Re: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost withconsistent quoting]

2002-11-29 Thread David Abrahams
Matthias Troyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So, while use of them may lead to a MORE portable C++ interface, they won't directly lead to a portable binary serialization format (although you can clearly fix that problem in platform specific byte reordering code). Agreed. It would just make

Re: [boost] int vs int32_t [was: Serialiization Review repost withconsistent quoting]

2002-11-27 Thread Matthias Troyer
On Wednesday, November 27, 2002, at 06:05 PM, Kevin Lynch wrote: Michael Walter wrote: If a library user wants his archives to be portable he has to use int8_t, int16_t, etc.. I don't remember seeing this pointed out, so forgive me if I just missed it or am just stating the obvious, but: