Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [serialization] problems implementing free-standing functions
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-03 15:01:01

From: Thorsten Ottosen [mailto:thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]]

> From: Thorsten Ottosen [mailto:thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:35 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Cc: Robert Ramey
> Subject: Re: [serialization] problems implementing free-standing functions
> Hi Robert,
> FWIW, I still stumple into the problem that you can't serialize a non-const
> object. This happens even for something as simple as serializing an int.
> I thought you had replaced this behavior with a sort of warning instead?

  I believe that I did changed it from BOOST_STATIC_ERROR TO
  BOOST_STATIC_WARNING in the latest released version. Note that the
implemenation BOOST_STATIC_WARNING is non-portable and for at least one
  platform I couldn't implement it so I left it as a no-op.

> If I would be to use the library for teaching or otherwise, I would just be
> littering my code with
> << ... ( as_const(x) )
> and if I do so, I probably don't get any help to track down the problems you
> claim this prevents.
  Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the library flags the situation
  with (now) warning or it doesn't. I realize that my view on the
subject is
  not universally held, but I'm more firmly convinced than ever that the
need to
  pepper one's code with const_cast is an indication of problems in the
  and/or implemenation of the code.

> Is it not posssible to turn this feature into a debugging aid, rather than
> something that is enabled by default? I'm thinking that the cost of the
> current strategy very much out-weights its benefits :-( .

  *** that was my intention when I changed it from ERROR to WARNING.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at