Re: [boost] [Serialization] this seems wrong

Subject: Re: [boost] [Serialization] this seems wrong
From: Kenny Riddile (kfriddile_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-02 17:08:38

Kenny Riddile wrote:
> Michael Marcin wrote:
>> Michael Marcin wrote:
>>> Michael Marcin wrote:
>>>> I don't know about getting rid of the unnamed namespace but 
>>>> essentially we just need a unique name per type in a translation 
>>>> unit.. so how about:
>>>>
>>>> #define BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT_GUID(T, K)                                \
>>>> namespace                                                            \
>>>> {                                                                    \
>>>>     template< typename U >                                           \
>>>>     class init_guid                                                  \
>>>>     {                                                                \
>>>>         static ::boost::archive::detail::guid_initializer<U> const & \
>>>>         guid_initializer_;                                           \
>>>>     };                                                               \
>>>>     template<> ::boost::archive::detail::guid_initializer<T> const & \
>>>>         init_guid<T>::guid_initializer_ =                            \
>>>>             ::boost::serialization::singleton<                       \
>>>>                 ::boost::archive::detail::guid_initializer<T>        \
>>>>             >::get_mutable_instance().export_guid(K);                \
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do we still need to explicitly instantiate init_guid here? If so add
>>>
>>> template class init_guid<T>;
>>>
>>
>> Never mind this fails if we have 2 export macros.. silly me.
>>
> I'm thinking I may just call BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT_GUID directly instead of 
> BOOST_CLASS_EXPORT to get around this problem.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
Oops, that obviously wouldn't work.  I've been staring at modified code 
so long in trying to fix the issue, that I had forgotten where the 
__LINE__ directive was originally being used :)