Re: Boost.Charconv review runs January 15th - 25th, 2024

From: Matt Borland (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-01-25 16:04:15

> 

> I'm still worried about the "non-allocating" initial description in the
> documentation.
> It rarely allocates, but it might. Even if only in edge cases and with a
> function that doesn't throw on allocation failure.
> So the initial documentation sentence describing the library is misleading.
> 

I am updating the docs to highlight this case.

> The return value on result_out_of_range is also something to think about.
> After considering opinions on both sides here and elsewhere, I tend to
> think we should not deviate from the standard in this case.
> Deviating from the standard also seems like a headache to the author.
> 

Between the reviews and slack there seems to be more people for swapping the behavior of from_chars and from_chars_strict. Any opinions on what the new function would be named? Something like from_chars_erange since it from_chars with modified ERANGE handling?

> It would be good to have some fuzzing tests in the library.
> 

Since this was a condition of Reuben's acceptance the PR can be found: https://github.com/cppalliance/charconv/pull/134

> ## What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> 

I am going through Peter's giant write-up on how to make the docs better which I believe will hit all of your points, but I will double check across all the reviews.

> 

> I recommend to ACCEPT Charconv into Boost.
> 

Thank you for taking the time to review, and providing feedback.

Matt