From: Eric Friedman (ebf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-02 17:07:58
Hi Troy (and others interested in this issue),
When I have some available time, I will take a look at the code for
serialization. Sorry for not replying sooner, but I don't check up on
the Boost list as often as I should.
One question, as I'm not familiar with the serialization library. What
effect do the proposed changes have on those users of variant who do not
need/want serialization support? Obviously there is the addition
#include, but does this imply overhead, or is the header simply forward
declares in the spirit of <iosfwd>?
troy d. straszheim wrote:
> Robert Ramey wrote:
>> I have had requests for this from time to time. Indeed, I have interest
>> myself. However, authors of boost::variant havn't shown an interest in
>> So I would suggest:
> I think I've got these covered:
>> a) Make sure it has a test. Ideally it should be in the same form
>> as the
>> other serialization tests so it can be just "dropped in" to the
>> current test
> Naturally. I started with one of the serialization tests, it gets run 5
> times on the 5 different types of archive like the others.
>> b) Make a simple html page to describe any "gotchas" (if any) or other
>> quirks one has to be aware of.
> Far as I can see, there really aren't any gotchas, it just serializes
>> c) Prepare to receive lots of advice on how you "should" have done it.
> Sure, I'd be glad to modify it to please the hordes, but I take neither
> credit nor blame, yet, it is from message
> Thread title "Serializing a variant", in which Richard Peters says:
>> The code in the previous posting gives a general solution for
>> serializing a
>> variant, so that there is no need to make an ad-hoc serializer for every
>> different variant.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk