From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-21 05:39:14
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
>>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
Is there a way to test if a class can be serialized. If that is the case,
maybe it would be beneficial to add it into fmt::basic using MPL wizardry.
I.e. can you do:
mpl::if_< is_serializable< T >, ..., ... >
>- if not, use default (operator<<)
>This seems ok to me. Reece?
I was thinking of having a separate format object (fmt::serialize?) instead
of complicating fmt::basic. You can then do:
BOOST_IO_CLASSIFY( SerializableType, boost::io::serializable_type )
to add it into the type deduction mechanism, unless there is an
is_serializable< T > trait.
Alternatively, you would be able to explicitly designate to use 'serialize':
io::object( people, fmt::container( fmt::serialize()));
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk