From: William E. Kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-24 09:17:30
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Garland" <jeff_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
> > the standard provide any sort of string conversions. They rely on
> > for this, and I think that's appropriate. It provides the most
> 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
> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk