Subject: Re: [boost] [lexical_cast] A suggestion
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-07 05:19:56
Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> ... I like the lexical_cast< int >("x", -1); syntax much more.
>> If the syntax is considered unacceptable, I can suggest another
>> int x = lex_cast< int >("x").with_default(10);
>> int y = lex_cast< int >("y").or_default_constructed();
> I sympathize with the idealistic desire for lexical_cast to look like
> the dynamic_cast et al. The problem is that no matter how you make
> lexical_cast look it does not do what other language-supported casts do
> -- dynamic_cast el al work with *types*, lexical_cast works with
> *values*. Making lexical_cast look like what it is not (the "real"
> casts) has no practical value and is just misleading.
I disagree. Making lexical_cast behave similar to other casts makes
perfect sense. It does change the type of its argument just as well as
its physical representation.
> Now seemingly out of desperation people are venturing into
> lex_cast< int >("x").with_default(10);
> lex_cast< int >("y").or_default_constructed();
> It's just crazy from the usability point of view. Are you sure users
> will appreciate all that mounting complexity on top of lexical_cast? All
> that is needed
> lexical_cast(Source const&, Target const& =Target())
No, that kind of implementation seems unacceptable to me. I want
lexical_cast to throw exceptions just as often as I don't want it to.
And, of course, I'm against introducing a breaking change.
> or most likely a completely independent overload
> lexical_cast(Source const&, Target const&)
That would be my preferred way to implement this extension.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk