From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-15 15:28:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> At this point, if you make any change I think you should add a note
> for those of us who are too clever by half, saying that, yes, it's
> really okay to overload in boost::serialization, and describing the
> trick used.
no problem with that.
I've recently checked in changes in the documentation in accordance with
this discussion. I believe that they will be satisfactory.
BUT there is a problem.
I recast the section Archive Concept / Saving in the table format used by
SGI. I'm very dissatisfied with this for esthetic reasons. I may be more
sensitive to this than other people because I use a monitor than can display
in portrait mode and that is the way I always use it. (Its in explicable to
me that everyone doesn't do this!).
I know I didn't choose the orginal form without thinking about it. Looking
back I realize now I was strongly influenced by the presentation in "STL
Tutorial and Reference Guide" which lays out the requirements in a form
similar to the one I chose.
Aside from any errors that remain which I will be happy to fix in any case,
I would like to leave the requirements in the dictionary text form as it was
originally. If I move to the table form for the Archive Concept, then in
the interest of consistency I would also have to do that with the section
Serializable Concept which would be a much larger task. So what I would
like to do is revert to the dictionary format for the saving archive
concept. I've just uploaded updated document files. It contains one format
for the save archive concept and the other for the load archive concept.
Interested parties are invited to comment before I make a final change in
one or the other.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk