Re: [boost] Draft Critique of Code Conversion Proposal (N1683)

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-01-06 20:09:13

At 03:05 PM 1/5/2005, Rob Stewart wrote:
 >From: Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
 >>
 >> 1. Hard-wired byte_string type in wstring_convert
 >> -------------------------------------------------
 >>
 >> If this suggested change is accepted, it will probably make sense to
 >rename
 >> some wstring_convert members.
 >
 >You'll probably need to enumerate the changes you think are
 >necessary to ensure good names are selected.

You are probably right. Perhaps I'll include a synopsis which shows all the 
changes.

 >
 >> 3. Need target-argument form for wstring_convert conversion functions
 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 >>
 >> wstring_convert's conversion functions are in the form:
 >>
 >>      byte_string to_bytes(const wide_string& wstr) const;
 >>
 >> While this form is often useful and should be retained, it may imply an 

 >> extra copy of the result if a compiler is not smart enough to optimize 
the
 >
 >> copy away.
 >> Suggested change is to add additional functions in the form:
 >>
 >>      void to_bytes(const wide_string& wstr, byte_string & target) 
const;
 >
 >I prefer output parameters to be first (due to the occasional
 >need to have defaulted parameters and the desire to find output
 >parameters in the same position relative to input parameters).
 >Thus, without meaning to trigger a religious war, I propose this
 >version instead:
 >
 >   void to_bytes(byte_string & destination,
 >      wide_string const & source) const;

I personally prefer output first too, but was following the STL practice. 
I'll mention your comment. Probably not worth talking about further here; 
the LWG will make that decision.

Thanks for you comments,

--Beman