Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-27 13:33:10

Matthias Troyer wrote:

>> Note that I'm not declining to do anything, I'm
>> just not sure what best thing to do is.
>
> Having the base_type  or however you call it accessible, and having a
> documented interface to these primitive types and a stable list of
> them should be enough. Any additional type will need a change to
> Boost.MPI, just as any change in the interface of these types.

I just looked at STRONG_TYPEDEF. It has always included
a default constructor for the derived type.   Would making
sure that the "new" type implemenations include a
default constructor fix the problem.  I found it helpful
to exclude it, but now that I've got the potentitial bugs
out of my archives, it's not really that big a deal for me.

That is for me it's been helpful to exclude it, but if
you find it helpful to included it, I can put it back in
so it will look just like all other STRONG_TYPEDEFS.

Robert Ramey

>
> Matthias
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost