Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest

Subject: Re: [boost] [boost::endian] Request for comments/interest
From: Tomas Puverle (tomas.puverle_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-01 12:07:33

> An API with only from and to functions doesn't preclude it, but it does make
it less efficient.

That was the intent of my response.

> Indeed, I'm suggesting a larger interface because I'm including your interface
and adding more.  The
> result is three categories of functions, ignoring overloads:
> 
>    from<X>()
>    to<X>()
>    swap<X_to_Y>()
> 
> That's not complicated or confusing, is it?

Ok.  I was on the verge of yielding to the "to" and "from" syntax in my previous
post.

That would satisfy your concerns, correct?

> I agree that is a better approach.  You might consider adding the reverse
choices for completeness: "Y_from_X."

Sure, will do.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

Tom