Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-26 15:22:47
On Jul 26, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Matthias Troyer wrote:
> On 26 Jul 2010, at 05:05, David Abrahams wrote:
>> [sent from tiny mobile device]
>> On Jul 26, 2010, at 1:56 AM, "Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> As I've said - I just never thought about this. On
>>> the other hand, I don't think the "detail" interface
>>> has changed very much (if at all) over time. I can't
>>> honestly say I know this - because as I've said -
>>> I never thought about it. I suspect that it hasn't
>>> changed much because we haven't had much
>>> if any breakage originating in this area.
>> Careful and consistent application of the boost concept check library would have caught any problem arising from models not satisfying stated concepts and operations relying on more than documented concept requirements. In fact, after this release would be a good time to apply BCCL to both libraries, to avoid such issues in the future.
> Dave, the issue is that no concepts were defined for the classes under discussion.
Are you saying that "classes under discussion" (by which I suppose you mean the primitive size type) were assumed by the serialization library to model a particular concept that was never defined?
-- David Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk