Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [lexical_cast] A suggestion
From: Andrew Troschinetz (ast_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-04 12:27:33

On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:53 AM, Alexander Nasonov wrote:

> Andrew Troschinetz <ast <at>> writes:
>> Here's some example usage:
> It's not clear from the example that this inliner
> lexical_cast< optional<int> >("x").get_value_or(-1);
> is a replacement for
> lexical_cast("x", -1);

I actually hadn't thought of that inliner, but now that I see it I
prefer it because I think it's cleaner conceptually and from an
interface standpoint. It also means there's no need for a lexical_cast
specialization for optional types, which I wrote all the while with a
feeling of "there must be a better way to do this."

But that inliner still doesn't get around the problem of types that
aren't default constructible.

Andrew Troschinetz
Applied Research Laboratories

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at