Re: Comments on lexical_cast

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-08 15:25:44

on 11/7/00 8:44 PM, Kevlin Henney at kevlin_at_[hidden] wrote:

> In message <B61F28A5.387%darylew_at_[hidden]>, Daryle Walker <darylew_at_[hidden]>
> writes
[SNIP]
>> 3.  You could use partial specialization to make certain cases of
>> lexical_cast:
> [...]
> 
> My concern with this is that there are too many special cases, a potentially
> unbounded list. However, I think this may be a suitable approach for something
> that Dave Abrahams mentioned in passing at the Toronto mtg, and is mentioned
> briefly in the future directions section of the lexical_cast documentation: an
> interpret_cast that makes appropriate dispatch decisions (eg lexical_cast vs
> numeric_cast) and provides appropriate specialisations (as you have outlined).

Why would these cases by a potentially unbounded list?  The four special
cases cover all scenarios where at least one of the types is a basic_string
type.  When a std::basic_string<> type is involved, you probably don't want
the force the use of the std::string for the implementation, since the
former has the same operations as latter, and using the former is more
direct.

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com