Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-25 16:51:16

On 25 Jul 2010, at 10:28, Robert Ramey wrote:

> Matthias Troyer wrote:
>> 
>> Then please demonstrate how to implement an archive that actually
>> does anything sensible and supports pointers, etc. without depending
>> on what you call implementation details. The only way is implementing
>> all the functionality from scratch.
> 
> Here's what to do:
> 
> a) derive from common archive instead of binary_archive.  

I have one more question in addition to my previous comment:

common_oarchive is in namespace archive::detail while basic_binary_oarchive is in the top namespace archive. Do I understand you correctly that deriving from archive::detail::common_oarchive is safe and not considered depending on implementation details, while deriving from archive::basic_binary_oarchive is not?

I can easily change all the Boost.MPI archives to use archive::detail::common_oarchive where they now use archive::basic_binary_oarchive (although this will not solve the issue we have right now).

Matthias