Re: [boost] Plea for addition of stream_cast

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-29 05:52:42

In message <003b01bfe176$018cf9f0$056ca8c0_at_[hidden]>, David
Abrahams <abrahams_at_[hidden]> writes
>I still favor my own suggestion - lexical_cast. interpret_cast is spelled
>way too much like reinterpret_cast, with which it has little in common.
>Also, lexical_cast is shorter ;)

Well, I reckon that interpret_cast and reinterpret_cast are sufficiently
far apart, and reflects the origins of the idea in scripting. However, I
must confess lexical_cast does have a nice ring to it and could quite
grow on me. Hmm, OK, lets call it lexical_cast -- anyone else want to
chip in $0.02 one way or another?

>> (2) For distinguishing between throwing and nonthrowing versions, I
>> tried out a few syntax forms, and found the following style one of most
>> convenient and "in the spirit":
>>
>>         a = interpret_cast<A>(b);
>>         a = interpret_cast<A>(nonthrowing(b));
>>
>> Whichever way we go, I would prefer to keep both forms as cast-like as
>> possible. Feelings on this?
>
>I don't see any advantage to this nonthrowing form over using std::nothrow
>as suggested in other posts.

Looks like a cast with a single operand.

>> If they are casts, which I would maintain they are, then I guess they go
>> with the other casts. Maybe it's just me, but I'm always faintly
>> suspicious of headers/directories/libraries that are called util or
>> utility: whilst not intrinsically a problem, they can end up as
>> repositories for almost anything that didn't fit any other
>> classification!
>
>Hear here!

:-)
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Ltd                   mobile: [phone]
  kevlin_at_[hidden]            fax:    [phone]
____________________________________________________________