Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-10 18:09:35


> Message du 10/05/11 23:50
> De : "Vladimir Batov"
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: [boost] [review] string convert
>
> > Vicente BOTET wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > ...
> > I suspect you have not understood my concern. The question is what is the
> > default behavior of the conversion
> > of two UDT Source and Target if the library is not aware of.
> >
> > Is it
> >
> > return Target(val)
> >
> > or
> >
> > Target res;
> > ios << val;
> > ios >> res;
> > return res;
> >
> > ?
> >
> > IMO this difference in behavior merits two different functions.
>
> The second approach of converting two UDTs (which could be done with
> lexical_cast) never made sense to me. It still looks bizarre and I doubt anyone
> deployed it ever. lexical_cast stream-related business is sensible as long as
> the string type is in the picture. In fact, I do not believe the ios-based
> conversion of 2 UDTs is by design. I see it more of a side-effect of
> lexical_cast stream-based approach to to_string from-string conversions. After
> all, it's not called *lexical* for nothing. The original 'convert' did not have
> the second behavior... well, it did not have the first -- Target(val) -- either.
> :-) That generalization seems sensible.

Do you mean that is without a specialization is a compile error in the original library? What are your project for the future library?

Best,
Vicente


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk