From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-28 14:26:39
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> This is about how I expect it to work. But from this description it's
> unclear:
> 1. Why would you need to save counter into archive? After all value 10
> has nothing to do with resulting 5.
> 2. Why would you need direct access to shared_ptr counter? After all
> using regular shared_ptr copy would automatically bump it to proper value.
I remember my initial implementation just restored the original state.
Thinking better of it I made a change to the current system. Now that you
mention it, it wouldn't seem to need the counter anymore. Just for laughs I
commented out the serialization of the counter and if failed to build the
test. I'll have to look into it.
Robert Ramey