From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-08 01:12:17
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Could you send a little more context. This isn't happening in our tests.
Just try a file containing two lines:
>>> /space/NM/boost/boost/archive/binary_iarchive.hpp:21, from
>>> /space/NM/boost/boost/serialization/is_abstract.hpp:30: error:
>>> redefinition of `struct boost::is_abstract<T>'
>>> /space/NM/boost/boost/type_traits/is_abstract.hpp:130: error:
>>> previous definition of `struct boost::is_abstract<T>'
>>> The second patch addresses this problem, but I'd also suggest to
>>> remove boost/serialization/is_abstract.hpp to avoid further problems.
> What about compilers which don't support is_abstract ? This would break
> serialization for all those compilers.
Why serialization/is_abstract.hpp is in better position to handle such
compilers then type_traits/is_abstract.hpp? I'm not saying that my patch
is ideal, but having two headers for the same purpose is very bad idea, IMO.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk