Re: [boost] [review] string convert

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Matthew Chambers (matt.chambers42_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-05 17:38:25

On 5/5/2011 4:35 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> Vicente BOTET<vicente.botet<at>  wanadoo.fr>  writes:
>>
>> Sorry. I believed we had a consensus ...
>
> Did you actually say 'consensus'? LOL
>
>> Could we state if the default_value CP is adopted?
>> How think is not a good thing and why?
>
> I am certainly looking at the idea from my original 'convert' point of view
> where such a thing was not needed. I find the need to write something like
>
> template<>
> default_value<example>
> {
>     static example apply() { return example(3); }
> };
>
> quite bothersome as I know I really do not have to. In the original wacky design
> the fallback and the default were synonyms. Now you are introducing an
> additional piece of machinery/code that is needed to deploy a class with
> conversion and I have to provide the default and the fallback. With that in mind
> I am not sure I am personally warming up for default_value concept yet.

Did you ever use boost.convert on a non-defaultable type? I've never needed that.

-Matt