Re: [boost] [optional_io] InputStreamable refinement

Subject: Re: [boost] [optional_io] InputStreamable refinement
From: Alexander Nasonov (alnsn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-04 11:50:36

Fernando Cacciola <fernando.cacciola <at> gmail.com> writes:

> And as I said, based on experience (*), arguing on which one is more 
> correct would quickly wind up in an endless discussion as the number of 
> participants goes up.
If you request a fast track review, it would set time limits on discussions.

> I could or could not agree with now, but only to 
> have someone else arguing for the current semantics in the near future.
> 
> So I'm much more interested on which one is more generally useful to the 
> most users.

Ok, lets look at it from a different angle.
Documentation compares optional<T> with variant<T,nil_t>. The latter is not
InputStreamable even if you make nil_t InputStreamable. Boost.Variant is
only OutputStreamable. Users seemd to be happy (but I'm not a maintainer to
say for sure).

> Robert's reply seems to indicate that the serialization library doesn't 
> require the current semantics.. is that so? can this be verified?

$ grep -rl optional_io boost/serialization/
<no matches>

BTW, serialization implements its own Boost.Variant serialization.

Alex