[boost] [serialization] No reply?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-08 18:25:22

Robert,

I'm wondering what happened to these threads.  Do you understand what
I'm saying?  Do you think I still don't understand what's going on?

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> 3. In that reference section, '&' is used repeatedly where only '>>'
>>>   is appropriate.  For example:
>>>
>>>     main(){
>>>        ...
>>>        base *b;
>>>        ar & b;
>>>     }
>>>
>>>   That can only be confusing.
>>
>> Hmm  - I checked that section and maybe it is confusing but not in the way 
>> it seems.
>>
>> the registration  or export must be done on BOTH saving and loading of 
>> archives.  
>
> It doesn't matter, since saving through an unitialized pointer causes
> undefined behavior.  That code can only work for loading.
>
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> 3. In that reference section, '&' is used repeatedly where only '>>'
>>>   is appropriate.  For example:
>>>
>>>     main(){
>>>        ...
>>>        base *b;
>>>        ar & b;
>>>     }
>>>
>>>   That can only be confusing.
>>
>> Hmm  - I checked that section and maybe it is confusing but not in the way 
>> it seems.
>>
>> the registration  or export must be done on BOTH saving and loading of 
>> archives.  It just occurred to me that this might not be obvious. My usage 
>> of & rather than << or >> reflects that examples such as the above use ... 
>> to replace code which creates and archive instance "ar" which could either 
>> be in input and /or output archive. I would be reluctant to replace the & 
>> above with << as it would suggest that << would be OK when it wouldn't be in 
>> all the cases where the example is applicable.
>
> Um, I never suggested '<<'.  Only '>>' is appropriate here.
>
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> IMO you'd be better off simply leaving out "template" on those
>>> compilers, if you can get away with it.
>>>
>>>      ar.register_type<T>()
>>
>> If I remember correctly, that's what I started out with.  
>
> Won't the CVS history tell you for sure?
>
>> I had to do what I did in order to get all compilers to accept it.
>
> I understand why you need template on _real_ C++ compilers; 
> I also know that vc6 requires that you get all explicit function args
> into real function args, to avoid link errors, so as long as you write
>
>      register_type(T * t = NULL);
>
> in the declaration you can still call
>
>    ar.register_type<T>()
>
> I've never heard of one that won't accept the above syntax no matter
> what you do.
>
> Anyway, workaround hacks should be kept out of the specification of
> requiremeents for a concept, except as a footnote.
>
> -- 
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> www.boost-consulting.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com