Re: [boost] [convert] Boost.Convert Library Review

Subject: Re: [boost] [convert] Boost.Convert Library Review
From: Gordon Woodhull (gordon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 13:07:58

On May 2, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Matthew Chambers <matt.chambers42_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>  I don't understand why lexical_cast can't (for technical reasons) be the "best_conversion" that Gordon alluded to.

My objection was to using the name lexical_cast for conversions that aren't lexicographical, ie text-based. The (admittedly lame) name best_conversion is a stand-in for some library that has a way to register conversions and chooses the best (usu fastest) available route from S to T, whether lexicographical or not. 

I'm not super finicky about names but I don't really see why a name that's inaccurate should be chosen, just because an old library is popular. 

Then again I guess you could argue that best_conversion should just be lexical_cast and the behavior should be "as if lexicographical."

lexicalesque_cast? ;-p