Hi Robert! thanks for the reply. I've to agree with you that my solution to problem was an ugly hack. It certainly is very inefficient and not exception safe. Furthermore it requires T::operator=. I took a look at the file you mentioned. But unfortunately I lack the knowledge of boost internals and, more important, I'm unfamiliar with the highly advanced c++ stuff, like inplace new or however the collection stuff is done. Therefore I, unfortunately, cannot suggest a better solution. I guess I've to bear with that performance hit, for now. I hope s.o. with better boost knowledge than me will address this issue in a future version. kind regards Alex

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org]Im Auftrag von Robert Ramey Gesendet: Donnerstag, 4. August 2005 01:49 An: boost-users@lists.boost.org Betreff: Re: [Boost-users] optional + serialize

a) I've read your post b) I see your point that the serialization of optional doesn't handle types without default constructors c) I agree that it should be fixed. d) don't like the way you fixed it. I'm sure should work but I don't like the usage of the heap. For a better way to do this take a look at collections_load_imp.hpp which adderss this problem in a different context.

Its too late to fixe for 1.33.

Robert Ramey

Jasper, Alexander wrote:

...

Hi Jeff, All!

thanks a lot for the reply. I assume the bug fix is in 1.33?

I'm still having issues with boost.optinal and boost.serialize working together (in 1.32). Is for deserialization of boost::optional<T> T required to have default ctor?.

This prevents boost::optionalboost::posix_time::time_period from being serialized. The extraction code fails to compile. I would an ugly way around this (please see my last email). Does anybody have ideas for better solutions?

I've attached a modified version of #include to this email, that contains code changes to make to work with types w/o T having a default ctor. But I'm really unhappy with that solution and I don't know what I broke with this change...

thanks in advance

Alex

...

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-users-bounces@lists.boost.org]Im Auftrag von Jeff Garland Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juli 2005 15:40 An: boost-users@lists.boost.org Betreff: Re: [Boost-users] questions concerning optional + date_time +serialize

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:21:38 +0200, Jasper, Alexander wrote

...

... Another thing is that I'm unable to serialize not_a_date_time ptimes. The extractions fails here. I'm using the binary archive. Is that supported? The documentation of date time only states compatibility with text and XML archive...

There was a recent (jun 21) bug-fix in date-time that was preventing correct serialization of special values -- even with text archives -- so it's likely that's what you are seeing. I haven't tried the binary archive, but there's no reason it shouldn't work. I believe you should be able to just pickup the latest version of gregorian/greg_serialize.hpp and posix_time/time_serialize.hpp to try it out.

Jeff _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

...

_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users