Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?

Subject: Re: [boost] [1.44] Beta progress?
From: Matthias Troyer (troyer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-28 14:27:10

On 28 Jul 2010, at 11:50, Robert Ramey wrote:
> 
> In these implementations, I did in fact depend on the fact
> that some internal types were not primitive - though
> convertible to primitives.  I think Matthias did the same
> but I'm not sure.  I think Matthias got surprised when
> I removed default constructability.  

Yes, that broke Boost.MPI for the Sun compiler.

> But he also got
> surprised when I changed class_id_type from unsigned
> int to least_16_t which surprised me since I thought
> the latter was just a typedef and not a true class.  

Actually not. The breaking was caused by another change you did at the same time.

> I
> also never anticipated that anyone would care about the
> list of internally used types as I never needed such a
> list in the archives I had already created.
> 
> In any case, make a concept for an archive called
> "All encompassing archive" similar to the family that
> we have would be quite a bit of work - and out of
> proportion to it's value in my opinion.  And suppose
> I felt that it should not be necessary to provide
> a comprehensive internal types and Matthias did.
> We'd be back in the same soup.

All you need to do is document what a class deriving from common archive has to implement. These are 

- the save/load function for 
- a well-defined set of primitive types with a well-defined interfaced
- and save_binary/load_binary.

Matthias