Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [lexical_cast] A suggestion
From: Ben Muzal (bmuzal_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-08 14:43:27

dynamic_cast<> has a implicit 'nothrow' version that returns the
default value of NULL. having a 'nothrow' version of lexical_cast
would not a all be out of line.


On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Ben Muzal <bmuzal_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> In fact, if we put together all the badly needed functionality that
>> overlaps with lexical_cast, and give it appropriate interfaces, I'm not
>> entirely convinced that there would be much use for lexical_cast
>> anymore.
> Really what is with all of the "slippery slope" arguments? People are
> not asking for the kitchen sink. We just want a nothrow version of the
> cast and to do that, a default value is needed.
> I always use my own extension "lexical_cast_nothrow" operator anyway
> that just catches the exception and returns a supplied default value
> if necessary.
> Lots of times there are cases when a default value simply will not be
> acceptable, but quite often one will. Why can't it be easy to support
> both models?
> I had not even heard of the <optional> library until reading this
> thread. I might update my little boost extension after checking to
> see how <optional> affects performance and code bloat -- but really,
> <optional> looks rather more complicated than necessary.
> I heard once that google was experimented with the number of search
> results that it returned. If they returned 100 results instead of 10,
> the search took .4 seconds longer. They found that the extra delay
> reduced the number of searches by 20% within the experimental group.
> The moral of the story: some times it is the little conveniences that
> count. I think that supplying a 'nothrow' version of lexical_cast is
> one of those little conveniences that would definitely count.
> --Ben

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