Re: [boost] [serialization] No Reply?

From: JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-13 16:42:51

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Robert Ramey <ramey_at_[hidden]>
Fecha: Martes, Septiembre 13, 2005 6:10 pm
Asunto: Re: [boost] [serialization] No Reply?

> This is quite interesting to me.  Its going to take a little time 
> to 
> consider with the attention it deserves.
> 
> Robert Ramey
> 
> JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> > ----- Mensaje original -----
> > De: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> > Fecha: Lunes, Septiembre 12, 2005 11:06 pm
> > Asunto: Re: [boost] [serialization] No Reply?
> >
> >>  * You should find some way to describe what it means for an input
> >>    and an output archive to be compatible.  Try to do that as
> >>    formally as possible.  You may have to rely on the fuzzy C++
> >>    notion of "equivalence," but I wouldn't blame you for that.
> >
> > IMHO, there's no need to go fuzzy or rely on an undefined
> > notion of "equivalence" between a serialized object and
> > its restored copy. One can define these concepts with much
> > precision in an "operational semantics" way, much as, for
> > instance, semantics of logic languages is formally defined:
> 
> > * A type T is serializable if the expressions
> >   oar<<ct;
> >   iar>>t;
> > are valid, where ct is of type const T& and t is of type T&,
> > oar is an output archive and iar is an input archive.
> 
> The above doesn't seem right to me.  I don't see its necessary here 
> an it 
> makes the concept of serializable and archive circular.  I believe 
> that the 
> inductive definition below - and currently in the document (more or 
> less) 
> defines the concept of serializable well enough.
> 

Hmm... yep, rethinking it, this is superfluous (yet not
circular AFAICS): the validity of these expressions is guaranteed
by the archive concept as you explain in your docs.
Serializability has to be defined in terms of the presence
of the serialize function/memfun, as you're doing now.

I think there's some weak points in my proposal
having to do with the relationship between
"archive association" and "restored copy" --for instance,
a dummy archive wih accepts iar>>t for every t and
simply does nothing would be, according to the
definitions, associated with any output archive, and
this is clearly not what we want. I've got this
thing going round my head, allow me to come back to you
in a few days.

Best,

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost