Re: [Boost-users] operators << and >> on boost serialization

From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-01-10 05:58:32

Robert Ramey wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

>>Anyway, it might be worth considering this procedure:
>>
>>1. There is no default tracking level. It must be set explxitly for
>>all classes. It should be part of a class' public interface that you
>>know it is serializable and that you know *explicitly* what tracking
>>it supports.
> 
> 
>>Maybe this can be implemented as a macro that must expand
>>inside the class, so it can only be provided with the declaration of
>>the class.
> 
> 
> This would require that one have access to the class definition
> inorder to serialize an instance.  Thus one of the main requirements
> of the library would have to be set aside.  This is essential to
> things like defining serialization.

Well, it could be made such the macros that work outside the class, 
check the class for presence of the internal macro.

>>AFAICT (*), with that in place, there is not need for "traps".
> 
> 
> You're probably correct here.  In this case, the second programmer
> changes the tracking behavior and breaks the others code at
> compile time.  (similar to what we have now - but more obvious)
> Still we would have to explain why this happens - no net gain in
> my view.

Well, wouldn't it mean that we could get the error to point at the
macro-definition, instead of some obscure place? (It is really hard to 
grasp why using a const-cast is really needed ... the connection is just 
to weak).

-Thorsten