also sprach Robert Ramey
This should work - How is your case different that test_cycle.cpp ?
If you are talking about test_cyclic_ptrs.cpp, how does that actually show that it works? It just states in a comment that it cannot be made to work, and the test_main code actually assumes that it won't work: BOOST_CHECK( exception.code == boost::archive::archive_exception::pointer_conflict );
The pointer conflict means that something has been serializaed as first as a pointer then as an object. Normally this should be easily avoidable.
What about the cases when it's not easily avoidable? In a related thread, I asked the question of how to serialise a linked list. node::serialize() { if (this->next) serialize *(this->next); serialize this->next; } this (recursive) approach will work (I think). But what if I have to use iteration? Or if I serialise a graph, where a number of pointers to a node may exist? Do I really have to go through the lengths to ensure that the Nodes are serialised first?
This is flagged as an error because the de-serialization would be a problem. First the deserialization of a pointer creates an object - next the object itself is re-loaded - but now we have two objects when we started with one.
Couldn't it just assign the already-created object to the non-pointer? From what I understand, serialising *P then P is the same as serialising P then *P: the first time, the entire object is dumped. The second time, a reference is written instead. Thus, on first creation, everything is already known about the object. And when the non-pointer needs to be serialised, then we don't return a pointer, but a reference... -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:" net@madduck invalid/expired pgp subkeys? use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! spamtraps: madduck.bogus@madduck.net scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, man.