Re: [boost] [serialization] No Reply?

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-12 14:33:38

Honestly, with time I have available, I've been resolving a couple of 
obscure but problematic issues re RC_1_33_0.

Just to summarize:

a) I've agreed to enhance the tutorial section on pointers so that the 
application of serialization of derived pointers isn't overlooked by the 
casual reader.

b) I've agreed to alter the "Archive Concept" section
    i) to eliminate the implementation of of the functions.
    ii) to put it in a tabular format without the "class ... "
    iii) consider whether it would better or worse to make to almost 
identical sections for loading archives and saving archives or just one 
section with notes for the operators/functions which don't apply.
    iv) probably change the name from "Archive Concept" to "Archive Type". 
I still have reservations about this as the term Archive is used to refer to 
any type that supports a specified set of operations.  That would seem to 
fit in the definition of a concept to me.  I'm still mulling this over.

c) Re the last issue of which namespace non-instrusive serialization 
functions should be placed into.

I actually did spend a lot of time on this in the past.  The issue surfaced 
when I first compiled with CW, gcc 4.0 and Commeau.  I carefully studied the 
explanation in Vandevoordes and Jostuttis book, and made changes.  This 
resulted in a much simpler "suggestion" as which namespace to use for 
non-intrusive serialization functions.  It also resulted in all the above 
compilers compiling and executing all the tests without problem of any kind 
when.

So I've already spent a lot of time on this issue.

Now it seems I didn't appreciate all there is two know about two-phase 
lookup.   So it takes some time to go back and review all the considerations 
that entered my mind when I "fixed" it the first time.  It's not that I'm 
dismissing your concerns.

Remind me of what its that you want to see changed.  The documentation 
re-worded or what?  If its just a question about making that documentation 
more precise, that would be pretty easy.

Robert Ramey

David Abrahams wrote:
> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>> Working harder won't help.  I just need more time to think about
>>> this.  I don't know if you saw the documentation and code required
>>> to deal wih this issue in version 1.32 but it was very messy.  I
>>> invested effort which I believe resulted in a major improvement.  So
>>> far no one has come upon this in practice and I'm curious to know
>>> why that might be.
>>
>> Because they're all using broken compilers, and I know the standard
>> better than most people.  I was bit by not respecting 2-phase lookup
>> in Boost.Python years ago and the lesson stuck with me, so I'm quite
>> aware of what works on a conforming compiler and what doesn't.
>
> So have you had time to consider the standard text and decide if I'm
> just inventing my interpretation of 14.6.4 Dependent name resolution
> [temp.dep.res] or if some adjustment in your approach is warranted?