Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-05 17:47:47

> Message du 05/05/11 23:37
> De : "Vladimir Batov"
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [boost] [review] string convert
> > Vicente BOTET> writes:
> >
> > Sorry. I believed we had a consensus ...
> Did you actually say 'consensus'? LOL

Yes, I did. And I added I believed. I see you don't see the utility yet. But I'm sure you will see it soon..

> > Could we state if the default_value CP is adopted?
> > How think is not a good thing and why?
> I am certainly looking at the idea from my original 'convert' point of view
> where such a thing was not needed. I find the need to write something like
> template <>
> default_value
> {
> static example apply() { return example(3); }
> };
> quite bothersome as I know I really do not have to. In the original wacky design
> the fallback and the default were synonyms. Now you are introducing an
> additional piece of machinery/code that is needed to deploy a class with
> conversion and I have to provide the default and the fallback. With that in mind
> I am not sure I am personally warming up for default_value concept yet.

I was not talking here of the fallback.

Note that you don't need to do that for the classes having a default constructor, which are most of them.


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