Re: [boost] [lexical-cast] version of lexical_cast in 1.46.1 is quite older than in trunk

Subject: Re: [boost] [lexical-cast] version of lexical_cast in 1.46.1 is quite older than in trunk
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-04-07 10:56:32

> Message du 07/04/11 11:23
> De : "Vladimir Batov" 
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [boost] [lexical-cast] version of lexical_cast in 1.46.1 isquite older than in trunk
> 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Vicente BOTET" 
> >> ... the Convert proposal sitting
> >> in the queue and getting ready for the review this month. I'd suggest 
> >> anyone
> >> interested in additional lexical_cast features to have a look the the 
> >> proposal
> >> if it already satisfies your needs. If not, then it's most definitely 
> >> open for
> >> improvements/extensions/ideas/etc.
> >
> > It will be great to have a performance comparison between your library and
> > lexical cast (with a without the proposed modifications) as one of the 
> > major
> > concerns of your library were to provide an interface that performs better
> > than lexical_cast.
> 
> As I understand the main goal of the Convert library was to provide richer 
> interface (or so I understood). Namely, to support configurable throwing 
> behavior, locale, formatting and ability to extend if/when needed. 
> Therefore, quite a bit of effort was put into working out the framework, the 
> interface. In that light at this stage I feel that trying to address 
> performance in Convert would be somewhat premature. Consequently, I do not 
> expect the Convert library to do to/from-string conversions any better or 
> worse than lexical_cast as at present Convert uses the same 
> std::stream-based engine for those conversions. Having said that I do 
> believe that performance needs to be addressed at some point and I am 
> currently leaning towards deploying Spirit facilities to do that. If anyone 
> has better suggestions, implementations, I do not see anything stopping them 
> from incorporating those improvements into Convert. Obviously, before we go 
> ahead doing that we have to find out if that library has any future to begin 
> with.

I replied to your post because you were suggesting the PO to see your library. As the PO was proposing performance improvements on lexical cast I thought that maybe your library could already provide what the PO was expecting. Unfortunatelly for PO it seems it is not the case.

Best,
Vicente