From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-08 01:12:17
Robert Ramey wrote:
> Could you send a little more context. This isn't happening in our tests.
Just try a file containing two lines:
#include <boost/type_traits/is_abstract.hpp>
#include <boost/archive/binary_iarchive.hpp>
>>> /space/NM/boost/boost/archive/binary_iarchive.hpp:21, from
>>> ../../../src/runtime/runtime_standalone.cpp:14:
>>> /space/NM/boost/boost/serialization/is_abstract.hpp:30: error:
>>> redefinition of `struct boost::is_abstract<T>'
>>> /space/NM/boost/boost/type_traits/is_abstract.hpp:130: error:
>>> previous definition of `struct boost::is_abstract<T>'
>>>
>>> The second patch addresses this problem, but I'd also suggest to
>>> remove boost/serialization/is_abstract.hpp to avoid further problems.
>
> What about compilers which don't support is_abstract ? This would break
> serialization for all those compilers.
Why serialization/is_abstract.hpp is in better position to handle such
compilers then type_traits/is_abstract.hpp? I'm not saying that my patch
is ideal, but having two headers for the same purpose is very bad idea, IMO.
- Volodya