David Abrahams wrote:
Edward Diener <eddielee@tropicsoft.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Edward Diener <eddielee@tropicsoft.com> writes:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> wrote in message news:20050423224553.M84538@crystalclearsoftware.com... | On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:32:22 +0200, Thorsten Ottosen wrote | What about serialization -- it's a big library, but really | important.
people are working on a proposal about reflection for C++0x which would give automatic serialization; so we'd better wait with this.
Having a reflection facility in C++ does not obviate the need for a serialization library. Furthermore since the reflection work is closed to those outside of the committee, AFAICS
What can you see that indicates the work is closed to those outside the committee?
1) I asked Gabriel Dos Reis to participate in the work on reflection and was told that my input was not needed, but if they needed someone to test things out, I could volunteer. In effect I was told to get lost, evidently because I was not a member of the committee or was not considered smart enough or important enough to contribute.
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from what Gaby says. He's just one guy with a not-always-smooth email demeanor. Never forget that the committee is made up of individuals, and that people working on proposals are not necessarily tied to the committee in any particular way. I would also not conclude from this that Gaby would welcome your help if you were a committee member. In other words, "closed to those outside the committee" is probably not the right conclusion. Those working on the reflection project may still not be interested in your input for whatever reasons, of course, but you might try knocking on a few other doors.
2) Where is the information regarding reflection and the work being done on it published ?
I don't think any information is being published. This is not a "committee project," at least not yet. This is some people working on a project that they *may* eventually bring to the committee in the form of a proposal, if they ever finish it ;-)
If it is not closed to those outside the committee, then the ongoing work on it should be accessible to others, and others should be able to comment on it and contribute to it.
Not neccessarily. Who the people on that project decide to accept contributions from is really up to them.
I will be sorely disappointed if C++ does not have serialization in the next C++ standard, but perhaps the C++ committee is working on that also.
You can pretty much tell what the committee is working on by looking at the contents of the publicly available mailings. There haven't been any serialization papers in any mailings I've seen. If you want to avoid disappointment, I suggest you write and submit a proposal.
I was promoting the idea that the Boost Serialization library be submitted.
My suggestion applies perfectly. Why don't you propose it?
If the Boost serialization library is not submitted, and the C++ committee is not intending to have a serialization library, I think it will be a big mistake but I have no serialization library of my own to submit
Pete Becker proposed, essentially, the Boost.Threads design. It doesn't have to be "your own."
as I think the Boost one is better than anything I could do and better than anything else I have ever seen using standard C++. I will be glad to work with Mr. Ramey on the writing up a proposal part, since I am a fairly good writer, but it is obviously up to him and not me whether he wants to propose the library to the committee.
Not really. If you really want this to happen, *you* should commit yourself to proposing it, and then invite Mr. Ramey to join you.
I disagree on this. It is clearly wrong, in my eyes, to propose any library to the C++ standard committee when that library is someone else's work. I greatly respect Mr. Ramey for the work he has done and is doing to make the Boost serialization library as good as it is but I would never want to propose such a library for inclusion as a standard library unless the creator of the library wanted to promote it also. It is also unfair to put that creator in such a position of extra work which standardizing a library might entail.