Jarl Lindrud wrote:
Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
Well, the problem also manifests in single programs, as A0 indicates. There's no versioning going on there.
This program contains a dummy function whose only purpose is to illustrate a problem that could occur under very infrequent circumstances. Whether or not it should be characterised as a valid usage of the library is a question I'll leave unaddressed.
Robert, if you are going to hint that A0 is invalid, please specify exactly what would make it so.
For the Nth time, what you call dummy code, is code that was originally instantiated by some other, completely different part of the program, for completely different purposes. The fact that such code has program-wide side effects in the form of incompatible archive format changes, can't be seen as anything but a serious problem. That's exactly what Matthias pointed out in his post. Are you going to characterize his code as "dummy code", as well?
Basically there were and are three options here.
a) include class information for all types inside of all archives. b) eliminate the option "track_selectively" c) do nothing.
I'm not versed in the internals of B.Ser. , so I really can't suggest how to fix this. I just want to see it acknowledged as a real issue,
I think I did this in response to Jeffrey Bosboom's post. Robert Ramey
and if it's not fixable, to be documented as such.
Regards, Jarl.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost