Robert, I'm wondering what happened to these threads. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you think I still don't understand what's going on? David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
3. In that reference section, '&' is used repeatedly where only '>>' is appropriate. For example:
main(){ ... base *b; ar & b; }
That can only be confusing.
Hmm - I checked that section and maybe it is confusing but not in the way it seems.
the registration or export must be done on BOTH saving and loading of archives.
It doesn't matter, since saving through an unitialized pointer causes undefined behavior. That code can only work for loading.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
3. In that reference section, '&' is used repeatedly where only '>>' is appropriate. For example:
main(){ ... base *b; ar & b; }
That can only be confusing.
Hmm - I checked that section and maybe it is confusing but not in the way it seems.
the registration or export must be done on BOTH saving and loading of archives. It just occurred to me that this might not be obvious. My usage of & rather than << or >> reflects that examples such as the above use ... to replace code which creates and archive instance "ar" which could either be in input and /or output archive. I would be reluctant to replace the & above with << as it would suggest that << would be OK when it wouldn't be in all the cases where the example is applicable.
Um, I never suggested '<<'. Only '>>' is appropriate here.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
IMO you'd be better off simply leaving out "template" on those compilers, if you can get away with it.
ar.register_type<T>()
If I remember correctly, that's what I started out with.
Won't the CVS history tell you for sure?
I had to do what I did in order to get all compilers to accept it.
I understand why you need template on _real_ C++ compilers; I also know that vc6 requires that you get all explicit function args into real function args, to avoid link errors, so as long as you write
register_type(T * t = NULL);
in the declaration you can still call
ar.register_type<T>()
I've never heard of one that won't accept the above syntax no matter what you do.
Anyway, workaround hacks should be kept out of the specification of requiremeents for a concept, except as a footnote.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com