Re: [boost] Re: lexical_cast with default value

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 03:27:22

In message <8dee398f92d54b9e2f27e107ee73052c_at_[hidden]>, Dave Dribin 
<dave-ml_at_[hidden]> writes
>On May 1, 2005, at 1:56 PM, Kevlin Henney wrote:
>> This issue of providing a default value in case of failure was 
>>discussed in the early days of lexical_cast, but not included. In 
>>fact, if you go back far enough, opting for the default or zero 
>>constructed value of the target rather than throwing an exception was 
>>the original behaviour.
>>
>> However, the accommodation of an additional argument was not included 
>>in lexical_cast in part for the simple reason that it ceases to look 
>>like a cast and in part because once you start down that road there 
>>are a number of additional arguments and options that you might want 
>>that are "reasonable". It was felt that much of this would be better 
>>off in a general conversions library that had no pretensions to being 
>>cast-like.
>
>I agree that the default behavior should throw an exception.  It just 
>seems silly to create a whole new library that could be done in an 
>existing one with about 5 lines of code.  And I'd prefer a 
>multi-argument cast-like function than include yet *another* 3rd party 
>library with my application.  Anyhow, I have an idea or two as 
>alternatives.  If you're interested, lemme know, otherwise I'll drop 
>the whole idea. :)

I'd be interested to hear your ideas.

Kevlin
-- 
____________________________________________________________
   Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
   mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     mobile: [phone]
   http://www.curbralan.com        fax:    [phone]
   Curbralan: Consultancy + Training + Development + Review
____________________________________________________________