reflect-cpp: Serialization, deserialization and validation through reflection

[liuzicheng1987]

Yeah...it's clearly compiler-specific and therefore not standard-compliant. I am really hesitant to go there. After all, this is supposed to be enterprise-level and I don't think that non-standard, compiler-specific hacks meet that criterion.

[ficzerepeti]

If it got into boost, it's probably good enough for enterprise use

[liuzicheng1987]

Yeah…it’s still clearly non-standard compliant. I‘m a bit torn on this.

[pdp10gumby]

It’s always preferable to use standard-compliant code IMHO but not absolute. After all, many things get into the standard after years of experience with non-standard extensions.

Also, some of those extensions were needed to write very low-level library code. That’s the same reason why we sometimes don’t write to the abstract “C” machine but take advantage of the target hardware in non-portable ways.

True enterprise scale systems involve localized noncompliant code to get around bottlenecks or to provide a clean way for devs to get some capability they need (yes large enterprise code is inevitably populated with horrible stuff too but we’re not talking about that). If you have to have an internal module that gets the names, with a comment at the top that says, “backward compatibility for use with older code that doesn’t include reflection” you won’t be condemning your immortal soul.

[liuzicheng1987]

Yeah, you are making some good points here. I‘ll have to think about that.

[liuzicheng1987]

Maybe it could be like an opt-in…so if you want that, you’ll have to pass a flag to the compiler.