Re: [boost] [review] string convert

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jeremy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-05 21:58:59

On 05/05/2011 05:57 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> Vicente BOTET<vicente.botet<at>  wanadoo.fr>  writes:
>> ..
>> I suspect that these complex classes you are talking off don't define the
>> input/ouput stream operator to work with your conversion framework.
>
> Jeez, is it really that hard to accept that 'convert' works and is used with
> many classes complex or not. Say, a Train class is complex as it has a *lot* of
> stuff. We serialize/unserialize the class to/from XML using 'convert'. Train has
> op>>() op<<().

I don't like default_value as a customization point either.  However, it 
seems that for a non-default constructable type, operator>> is likely 
not the ideal interface for unserialization.  How would you use your 
unserialization functionality separately from the convert library? 
Presumably you would need some way to obtain a constructed instance in a 
form suitable for invoking operator>>.  If the non-default-constructable 
type has any members that aren't default constructable, you would have 
to somehow construct the members as well.