Takatoshi Kondo wrote: Hi Takatoshi. Nice hear from you. Havn't heard from you in a while. ... example and expanation in previous post.
ar & BOOST_SERIALIZATION_BASE_OBJECT_NVP(A); // My approach // ar & BOOST_SERIALIZATION_BASE_OBJECT_NVP(B);
If I pass it B instead of A, the following exception would be occurred. "unregistered void cast struct C<-struct A"
Hmmm ... Are sure you don't mean to say "If I pass it A instead of B" One of he side effects of BOOST_SERIALIZATION_BASE_OBJECT_NVP(A) (orB) is to invoke void_cast_register<base class, derived class> ... I would think that you could skip B in this case. But one would have to more carefully investigate how this macro is implemented. Note that if B is implemented as just another macro ar & BOOST_SERIALIZATION_BASE_OBJECT_NVP(A); so things can be done the normal way, I would hope that a release build would collapse the code to be equivalent to your method of skipping B. It's also possible the the macro implementation could be refined and/or enhanced to permit the skipping of B if it doesn't do so already. Note that the tests/examples include one case where the void cast register is called directly - thereby eliminating the call to the macro. This short circuits the whole process and would be the most efficient. This is why I believe that the macro could be modified to directly pass A instead of B Robert Ramey