[serialization][static_assert] Moving BOOST_STATIC_WARNING to Boost.StaticAssert?
Hi there, do you think it would make sense to move static_warning.hpp from boost/serialization up directly under boost/, and perhaps move it conceptually under Boost.StaticAssert umbrella? It seems strange how a serialization library exposes such general-purpose service. We could still provide a forwarding header in Serialization namespace for backward compatibility. Shall I prepare a patch to that effect? Thanks, PM
Petr Machata wrote:
Hi there,
do you think it would make sense to move static_warning.hpp from boost/serialization up directly under boost/, and perhaps move it conceptually under Boost.StaticAssert umbrella? It seems strange how a serialization library exposes such general-purpose service. We could still provide a forwarding header in Serialization namespace for backward compatibility. Shall I prepare a patch to that effect?
lol - it used to be in there. Do to strident objections from some key member's of the boost community I had to move it be a detail of the serialization library. They same could be said for serialization::singleton, serialization::state_saver, and a few others.
Thanks, PM
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Petr Machata wrote:
do you think it would make sense to move static_warning.hpp from boost/serialization up directly under boost/, and perhaps move it conceptually under Boost.StaticAssert umbrella?
lol - it used to be in there. Do to strident objections from some key member's of the boost community I had to move it be a detail of the serialization library. They same could be said for serialization::singleton, serialization::state_saver, and a few others.
Hmm, that's unfortunate. Do you have a link to that conversation, or at least a rough timeframe when it took place? I couldn't find it. Perhaps the reasons expressed back then do not hold anymore... Thank you, PM
Petr Machata wrote:
"Robert Ramey" <ramey@rrsd.com> writes:
Petr Machata wrote:
do you think it would make sense to move static_warning.hpp from boost/serialization up directly under boost/, and perhaps move it conceptually under Boost.StaticAssert umbrella?
lol - it used to be in there. Do to strident objections from some key member's of the boost community I had to move it be a detail of the serialization library. They same could be said for serialization::singleton, serialization::state_saver, and a few others.
Hmm, that's unfortunate. Do you have a link to that conversation, or at least a rough timeframe when it took place? I couldn't find it. Perhaps the reasons expressed back then do not hold anymore...
It was quite long ago. The real reason was that it wasn't officially reviewed. So it seemed that something was "sneaking into boost" without official sanction. I certainly wasn't up for getting 3-5 new (albiet small) components reviewed. (the serialization library reviews left me an old man). I just left them in the serialization library. Given that at least a few of them are widely used (at least one - STRONG_TYPEDEF has been suggested as an idea for the standard library) I'm sure that if someone wanted to take on the task of getting them reviewed, maybe brought up to date, etc, they might well be successful. It would be the easiest way for someone to be able to add "boost library author/maintainer" to his resume. I'm soon getting back to my pet project www.blincubator.com where I plan to post these components as "potential libraries" to make them easier for anyone to use/test/critiique without loading the whole boost behemoth and as a place to gather feedback on them. Of course if you're interested - feel free to pick the one you like the best and get started! Robert Ramey
Thank you, PM
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
participants (2)
-
Petr Machata -
Robert Ramey