From: Russell Hind (rh_gmane_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-04 02:44:09
So what can be done to stop these conflicts? Forcing header include
orders on us isn't very practical, especially for unrelated libraries
such as this (it is acceptable for the dependency order imposed between
archive/serialization) as they are related) but it isn't practical in a
large project to know which headers may include type_traits (directly or
indirectly) and then make sure they are included after serialization
headers.
Thanks
Russell
Robert Ramey wrote:
> When I look at the new code in type_traits/is_abstract for compilers which
> can't implement correct is_abstract, it seems it marks any polymophic class
> as abstract. This would conflict with the serialization system which really
> needs to know if a class is really abstract - not just polymorphic. I would
> be curious as to why type_traits/is_abstract makes this the default. The
> serialization system makes "false" the default.
>