From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-26 10:28:41
I didn't mean to say that there's anything wrong with it. Just that I
couldn't imagine a situation where one would want to do it. I see it now.
Thanks.
Robert Ramey
Martin Slater wrote:
>> ar << *this; // I can't imagine what this if for
>
>
> Is this going to break with the new release? I use this idiom quite a
> lot and would hate to have to hack the boost source immediately 1.33
> is released. From my point of view this lets me serialise some complex
> objects with exposing the acutal serialisation mechanism used, hence
> its an implementation detail that I am free to change without breaking
> client code. These objects take a file path to load from in a
> constructor and initialise from that and also have a save member
> funtion to write out the archive. Whats so odd about that?
>
> Martin