Re: [Boost-users] Boost Serialization tracking issues 2

From: gast128 (gast128_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-14 04:33:35

Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:

> a) always the right thing
> b) always the same thing - and maybe emit a warning or error when its not a 
> good idea
> 
> Choosing b) makes for a transparent system and this is what I usually 
> prefer.
> Generally I detest hidden features, attributes, which make things look 
> easier but in fact produce
> surprising side-effects.  When tthings fail it means a huge effort trying to 
> get
> to the bottom of things - often the only recourse is by trial and error.
> 
> a) is much more popular today.  It seems easier and makes a better demo.
> And its seductive - let's design it so "it just works".  If there is one 
> program > in my whole life which has tested my sanity its Microsoft Word.  
> (next in line might be bjam).

snip rest.

I understand this. But maybe the ambition is too high. In the c++ language one 
can choose many constructs, but the intention is not specified. For refernces 
it is clear (they must point to other objects), but (shared-)pointers can have 
value or reference semantics.

An alternatvie would be too make a two layer library: in the basic library the 
user has to specify the storage intention himself; the upper layer uses the 
basic layer and try to make assumptions about intentions. In this way the user 
can alwyas fall back. For example in Boost.Bind one can explicitly specify the 
return type, it automatic detection is unsatisfying.

This is of course all said without the experience of making a serialization 
library myself...