Robert Ramey <ramey@[...].com>  writes:

>  This circumstance which provoked the current confusion is a result
>  of my interpretation of what it means to serialize a collection - in
>  this case a vector.
> 
>  In such a case the most natural (to me) interpretation was to clear the
>  vector and re-create the vector elements - STL calls default constructor
>  in this case which you chose to make private to inhibit other potential
>  callers. 
> 
>  My response was that I didn't believe that one should even have
>  a default constructor in such cases.  I showed how to override
>  the collection load function to implement such a point of view.
> 
>  Upon reflection, I've come to believe my response was beside the point
>  and confused the issue.   I am going to tweak the library so that
>  loading of collections is handled specially and given access to 
>  any private default constructor.  I now believe that this will not
>  create any of the problems I originally envisioned.

Of course I may be missing something, but it seems to me that the
correct approach for deserializing a collection is to deserialize
each element and then copy it into the collection with push_back.  Am
I missing something crucial?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost