On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:41:36 -0700, Robert Ramey
Mostafa wrote:
This is out of date. Look at another polymorphic archive header. For example polymorphic_text_oarchive.hpp. Make the changes and post a patch in the track system. Also you might find the "class diagram" link helpful.
Robert Ramey
Should I then conclude that polymorphic_portable_binary_iarchive.cpp and polymorphic_portable_binary_oarchive.cpp are no longer needed. They don't have a counterpart vis-a-vis polymorphic_text_oarchive.hpp, and I got portable binary archives to work without them.
polymorphic versions of the archive classes are only needed if you want to use the polymorphic archive interface rather than the more common non-polymorphic interface.
I understand that. What I don't understand is the need for the polymorphic .cpp files. All they seem to be doing is explicitly instantiating templates. Additionally, they fail to compile because basic_pointer_iserializer and basic_pointer_oserializer are no longer template classes. Because there's no polymorphic_text_oarchive.cpp counterpart, I didn't have a template (no pun intended) for fixing the polymorphic .cpp files. For these reasons I left them out of my build, and I was able to compile and test BOTH the polymorphic and non-polymorphic archives against strings and longs. So, basically the question I had left was should the polymorphic *.cpp files be fixed or just left out when I post a patch to the trac? Thanks, -Mostafa