Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-27 13:45:11

Robert Ramey wrote:
> 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.

Actually I misspoke here. We could add a default constructor
to BOOST_ARCHIVE_STRONG_TYPEDEF which
is defined in base_archive.hpp where all the types in
question are defined.

Robert Ramey