🚀 go-pugleaf

dirk@becker.adviser.com (Dirk Becker) writes:

>A better support of persistence was also the intention of my original post.
>But I did not ask for the additional information in RTTI because I knew
>already the reason:

>This wide RTTI would allow anybody with a decent disassembler to reverse-
>engineer your valuable data structures, including full member variable
>names. This cannot be acceptable for a general-purpose (not only persistence)
>feature.

Just whose reason was that? So far as I know, no such discussion ever
took place in the C++ Committee.

No proposal has ever been turned down on the basis of it making code
easier to reverse-engineer or disassemble. I know of no serious
discussion within the C++ Committee where such a subject was even raised.

So far as I know, no complete proposal for providing support for
persistence was ever presented.

The difficulty lies in devising a scheme that is portable, implementable,
useful, and also acceptable to a wide range of implementors and users.
--
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  Moderation policy:
  http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html. ]