Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-27 13:54:29

On 27 Jul 2010, at 11:45, Robert Ramey wrote:

> 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.

The default constructor will be useful and fix the Sun problem.

>> 
>> 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.

Yes, it would be good if all the STRONG_TYPEDEFS model the same concepts.

Matthias