Jody Hagins wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:35:21 -0700 "Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> wrote:
Of course an alternative would be for <boost/serialization/shared_ptr.hpp> to include .../shared_ptr_132.hpp but I thought people without old archives would object to that - as I would personally.
Sounds like a preprocessor definition should be used instead, and then serialization/shared_ptr.hpp can optionally include the 132 header file, if the apprpriate definition for use-132-shared-ptr exists...
This effectively hides it from everyone, and only those who need it would make the appropriate definition...
So I presume that instead of #include <boost/serialization/shared_ptr_132.hpp> #include <boost/serialization/shared_ptr.hpp> one would use #define BOOST_SERIALIZATION_SHARED_PTR_132_COMPATIBILITY #include <boost/serialization/shared_ptr.hpp> Is that really an improvement? Actually, I'm wondering about having shared_ptr_132.hpp including shared_ptr.hpp So one would include just one or the other. Robert Ramey