From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-21 04:48:48
John Torjo wrote:
>>>My real observation is that I see this as orthogonal to serialization and
>>>that it should remain that way. I don't seen any real overlap now except
>>>that there might be a couple of instances where either one might do. I
>>>think even these would be rare cases. I would resist any idea to
>>>intertwine these concepts.
>> I'm lost. What are "these concepts"? What I propose is that the
>> "serialize" method be usable by the outfmt library to generate more
>> usable output. No other link between the two libraries is suggested.
> I assume you suggest something like:
> - if an object can be serialized, use that for output
> - if not, use default (operator<<)
This depends on the meaning of "can be serialized". If that means, "has the
method 'serialize'", then right, I suggest to use it. If that mean using
the serialization library (say, text_archive or xml_archive), then no. I'd
like to use outfmt without including all serializaton headers. I want to be
able to output all of my classes, and I don't want to include serialization
headers in all of my own headers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk