[boost] construe_cast, call for interest and feedback

Subject: [boost] construe_cast, call for interest and feedback
From: Jeroen Habraken (vexocide_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-10-07 13:38:16

Hi,

I'm proud to say I've tagged a version 0.2 of construe_cast some
minutes ago. For those unfamiliar with the library (it's the first
time I'm posting this to the boost mailinglist), it's a library which
builds upon boost.spirit to create a cast-like operator aiming to
provide an alternative to lexical_cast providing greater speed and
flexibility.

The current code can be found at
http://github.com/VeXocide/construe_cast and should be compatible with
boost version 1.42.0 and up.

What can it do, in short, boost::construe_cast<int>("23") and
boost::construe_cast<std::string>(23); (and a lot of other types,
basically the ones boost.spirit supports). Secondly, since this
release, boost::construe_cast<std::string, tag::bin>(23) resulting in
a std::string("10111") and visa versa. The user has the ability to add
functionality here by implementing extra tags, by default tag::bin,
tag::oct and tag::hex are implemented, with more to follow.

What I'm hoping to add the coming weeks:
- Documentation, I'm somewhat ashamed to say this hasn't been written
yet, however, this will be tackled shortly.
- Support for different encodings, it currently uses standard (ASCII)
and standard_wide for wchar_t, with more to follow.
- A nothow version, like lexical_cast it currently throws when it
encounters a run-time, an interface returning false or a default value
will be included (the exact interface hasn't been decided upon yet).

Performance, now this is where it gets hard. I've done some basic
benchmarking and it's somewhere between one and five times as fast as
lexical_cast, depending on what you're casting. Good compilers (I've
notices this with gcc 4.4 and up for example) are actually capable of
optimizing boost::construe_cast<int>("23") to the integer 23 at
compile-time which makes it tricky to benchmark. If anyone with more
benchmarking experience is willing to look into this, please do.

Again, thanks to everyone who helped me get this far, and Hartmut in
particular. There seems to be little to add at the moment, I'm looking
forward to your opinions and insights.

Regards,
Jeroen Habraken

P.S. I've had a few responses about the name, construe is an english
word (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/construe) and I'm using
construe_cast as a working name. If people are ever going to consider
this for inclusion with boost, changing the name will surely be the
least of my worries.