Re: [Boost-users] [serialization] suggestion for the extension of the functionality

From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 11:55:20

Paul Giaccone wrote:
> OK, if it is more hassle than it is worth, that is fine,

well it IS more hassle than its worth - but that's only
one reason I would be reluctant to add it.  I'm
wary about accidently tying serialization to streams.
That's why I'm inclined to drag my feet regarding adding
"stream like" api names to serialiazation.  Of course
I'm known to drag my feet regarding adding anything
to the serialization library that doesn't absolutely have
to be there.  This is to keep things actually manageable.

Up until now - all the included achives have depended
on a stream whose reference is passed during
archive construction.  In the next version - this
native binary archives will depend only on a streambuf.
This change is being made to enance performance and
will break little if any usercode.

> Is the necessity of closing the scope to complete the write in the
> documentation?

If you don't see it there - its not there.  I look for a good place to add a 
note.

Robert Ramey