Re: [Boost-users] Serialization and reading from a const object (was: [Serialization] Serializing a map)

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-25 00:48:25

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

> b) We could make the emmision of the message (assert or warning) conditional
> or suppressable via definition of something like BOOST_SUPPRESS_WARNINGS
> (which could be part of BOOST_STATIC_WARNING).
> 
> The argument that people don't/won't read the documentation doesn't evoke
> much sympathy from me.  On one hand we want to permit someone to make
> an egregious error so that he won't have to read the manual to understand
> the nature of his error. I don't buy it.  In the code where the static 
> assertion
> occurs there is a pointer to the explanation in the manual.  It bother's me
> much less to have someone complain about this error than it does getting
> email titled "bug in serialization" from people "too busy" to read the 
> portion
> of the manul pointed to by the comment in the line where the error message
> is emitted.
> 
> I want everyone to be successful using the library - even if they complain
> that it requires them to write good code.
                                  ^^^^^^^^^
IMO the current policy of the library actually forces me to write 
bad/ugly code because if I ever want to serialize something in a 
non-const context I have to force it to const artificially.

This will be short because I know we've been over this point endlessly 
in the past, but I'll try one more time.  Make a macro to control this 
behavior:

BOOST_SERIALIZATION_CONST_STRICT

or whatever.  Make this optional.  When someone posts an issue with an 
archive, tell them to recompile with this option turned on so that they 
can help find the problem.  Then the rest of us can write normal code 
and the library will behave as expected.  Less people will need to read 
the fine print of the library.

BTW, I suspect the decrease in bug reports might be a result of less 
folks being able to get "hello serialization" to compile and 
subsequently giving up on the library instead of the 'better' code that 
this 'enforces'.

Jeff