Robert Ramey wrote:
Paul Giaccone wrote:
Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki wrote:
I raised this issue a few months ago. It turns out that the only way of closing a stream at the end of serialisation is to leave the scope in which the stream was opened. The reason for this is, I believe, so that a "footer" can be written to the stream indicating the end of the file.
This is a requirement of the xml_archive - I suppose a "close" function could be added to the xml_archive so that one woudn't have to depend on the destructor being called - but then one would want to add it to all the archives where it would be a no-op.
It seems to me that it would just not be worth it to avoid the { } alternative. In fact, I rather prefer the {} alternative - it makes more sense to me.
It would be handy, as Seweryn suggests, if there could be a close() function available to users that did this, so that users could close the stream *** you mean "close the archive" - leaving the stream open?*** when they needed to.
One application of this is allowing a
stream to be used for writing and then reading within the same scope. At the moment, a new scope is required to do this.
Robert Ramey
OK, if it is more hassle than it is worth, that is fine, as I saw you posted a way of writing and reading in the same scope a few days ago. Is the necessity of closing the scope to complete the write in the documentation?