Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Harris) writes: > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:19:27 -0500 David Abrahams > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> As I understand it, reflection means the ability to >> discern the structure of language constructs. > > In some languages it is not just

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:19:27 -0500 David Abrahams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > As I understand it, reflection means the ability to > discern the structure of language constructs. In some languages it is not just reading. It includes the ability to interact - to a

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Harris) writes: > In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:16:49 -0500 David Abrahams > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> > This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a >> > reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstractio

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:16:49 -0500 David Abrahams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a > > reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction, in > > that it deals with methods and instanc

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Harris) writes: > > > In-Reply-To: > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >> [Various reflection library links] > > > > This is interesting, but t

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Harris) writes: > In-Reply-To: > On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> [Various reflection library links] > > This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a > reflectio

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 16:25:39 -0500 Jeremy Maitin-Shepard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > I agree that a traditional reflection framework would not be > suitable. However, with serialization in mind, I think we can design > a reusable reflection framework that will be

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 08:37:00PM +, Dave Harris wrote: > This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a > reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstraction, in that it > deals with methods and instance variables rather than fields. > I also don't trust an

Re: [boost] Serialization and Reflection

In-Reply-To: On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:07:45 -0800 (PST) ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > [Various reflection library links] This is interesting, but to me it mostly confirms that I don't want a reflection framework. It is at the wrong level of abstractio