Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-27 14:28:32

At Tue, 27 Jul 2010 09:19:53 -0800,
Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
> Matthias Troyer wrote:
> > On 26 Jul 2010, at 18:25, David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> >> I think it's crucially important to _correctly_ identify the cause
> >> of this impedance mismatch, and so far, I don't think that has
> >> happened.
> >
> > Here is the issue: if one does not want to implement serialization
> > from scratch one has to derive from
> > boost::archive::detail::common_[io]archive. The *implicit* and not
> > documented requirements for such a derived archive are to deal with
> > serialization os
> >
> > - std::string (and optionally std::wstring?)
> > - fundamental C++ integral, boolean, and floating point types
> > - an *unspecified* list of "primitive" types
> 
> > Those primitive types had the semantics of integral types, but no
> > concepts were documented for those types, and neither were those
> > types one had to support part of the public interface. However, any
> > archive still had to correctly serialize those types. would you call
> > this missing documentation or specification?
> 
> First of all - these are serializable types by virtue of
> the fact that they are convertible to integers and references
> to integers.  

If you are claiming that convertibility to integers and references to
integers is enough to satisfy your Serializable concept, I can almost
**guarantee** you that the concept is ill-defined, and that using the
Boost Concept Check Library properly would prove it.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com