From: Edward Diener (eddielee_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 07:40:13
David Abrahams wrote:
> Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>David Abrahams wrote:
>>>Edward Diener <eddielee_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>>Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>>>>"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>>| On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
>>>>>| What about serialization -- it's a big library, but really
>>>>>people are working on a proposal about reflection for C++0x which
>>>>>would give automatic serialization; so we'd better wait with this.
>>>>Having a reflection facility in C++ does not obviate the need for a
>>>>serialization library. Furthermore since the reflection work is
>>>>closed to those outside of the committee, AFAICS
>>>What can you see that indicates the work is closed to those outside
>>1) I asked Gabriel Dos Reis to participate in the work on reflection and
>>was told that my input was not needed, but if they needed someone to
>>test things out, I could volunteer. In effect I was told to get lost,
>>evidently because I was not a member of the committee or was not
>>considered smart enough or important enough to contribute.
> I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from what Gaby says. He's just
> one guy with a not-always-smooth email demeanor. Never forget that
> the committee is made up of individuals, and that people working on
> proposals are not necessarily tied to the committee in any particular
> way. I would also not conclude from this that Gaby would welcome your
> help if you were a committee member. In other words, "closed to those
> outside the committee" is probably not the right conclusion. Those
> working on the reflection project may still not be interested in your
> input for whatever reasons, of course, but you might try knocking on a
> few other doors.
>>2) Where is the information regarding reflection and the work being
>>done on it published ?
> I don't think any information is being published. This is not a
> "committee project," at least not yet. This is some people working on
> a project that they *may* eventually bring to the committee in the
> form of a proposal, if they ever finish it ;-)
>>If it is not closed to those outside the committee, then the ongoing
>>work on it should be accessible to others, and others should be able
>>to comment on it and contribute to it.
> Not neccessarily. Who the people on that project decide to accept
> contributions from is really up to them.
>>>>I will be sorely disappointed if C++ does not have serialization in
>>>>the next C++ standard, but perhaps the C++ committee is working on
>>>You can pretty much tell what the committee is working on by
>>>looking at the contents of the publicly available mailings. There
>>>haven't been any serialization papers in any mailings I've seen.
>>>If you want to avoid disappointment, I suggest you write and submit
>>I was promoting the idea that the Boost Serialization library be
> My suggestion applies perfectly. Why don't you propose it?
>>If the Boost serialization library is not submitted, and the C++
>>committee is not intending to have a serialization library, I think
>>it will be a big mistake but I have no serialization library of my
>>own to submit
> Pete Becker proposed, essentially, the Boost.Threads design. It
> doesn't have to be "your own."
>>as I think the Boost one is better than anything I could do and
>>better than anything else I have ever seen using standard C++. I
>>will be glad to work with Mr. Ramey on the writing up a proposal
>>part, since I am a fairly good writer, but it is obviously up to him
>>and not me whether he wants to propose the library to the committee.
> Not really. If you really want this to happen, *you* should commit
> yourself to proposing it, and then invite Mr. Ramey to join you.
I disagree on this. It is clearly wrong, in my eyes, to propose any
library to the C++ standard committee when that library is someone
else's work. I greatly respect Mr. Ramey for the work he has done and is
doing to make the Boost serialization library as good as it is but I
would never want to propose such a library for inclusion as a standard
library unless the creator of the library wanted to promote it also. It
is also unfair to put that creator in such a position of extra work
which standardizing a library might entail.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk