Hi Troy (and others interested in this issue), When I have some available time, I will take a look at the code for serialization. Sorry for not replying sooner, but I don't check up on the Boost list as often as I should. One question, as I'm not familiar with the serialization library. What effect do the proposed changes have on those users of variant who do not need/want serialization support? Obviously there is the addition #include, but does this imply overhead, or is the header simply forward declares in the spirit of <iosfwd>? Thanks, Eric troy d. straszheim wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
I have had requests for this from time to time. Indeed, I have interest myself. However, authors of boost::variant havn't shown an interest in doing this. So I would suggest:
I think I've got these covered:
a) Make sure it has a test. Ideally it should be in the same form as the other serialization tests so it can be just "dropped in" to the current test setup.
Naturally. I started with one of the serialization tests, it gets run 5 times on the 5 different types of archive like the others.
b) Make a simple html page to describe any "gotchas" (if any) or other quirks one has to be aware of.
Far as I can see, there really aren't any gotchas, it just serializes variants.
c) Prepare to receive lots of advice on how you "should" have done it.
Sure, I'd be glad to modify it to please the hordes, but I take neither credit nor blame, yet, it is from message news://news.gmane.org:119/co291u$68j1@sea.gmane.org Thread title "Serializing a variant", in which Richard Peters says:
The code in the previous posting gives a general solution for serializing a variant, so that there is no need to make an ad-hoc serializer for every different variant.
-t
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost