Re: [boost] Re: reminder about Date/Time formal review

From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-24 09:17:30

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 5:28 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Re: reminder about Date/Time formal review

> > I don't care for this at all.  Note that none of the current C++ types
in
> > the standard provide any sort of string conversions.  They rely on
iostreams
> > for this, and I think that's appropriate.  It provides the most
flexibility
>
> Perhaps.  It doesn't support cases where you read a text file line by line
> into a string and then dole out the parts.

Sure it does.

> > and insures a uniform way to obtain string representations.  Providing
both
>
> So I take it you aren't going to be in favor of the to_string addition to
> the conversions library?

Actually, I am in favor of that.  It's a convenience function that
simplifies the usage of string conversions via iostream.  Unlike a
class::to_string(), the to_string convenience function retains all of the
configurability of the iostream approach.  All it does is turn 5 or so lines
of code into a single function call.

Bill Kempf