Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Conversion: functors namming
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-23 18:21:17

Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Vicente BOTET wrote:
>> during the Boost.Convert after review discussion there were
>> some proposals to use Boost.Phoenix to build the functors.
>> My question is what should be the name of the function that
>> builds the functor. Some possibilities:
>> short s=1;
>> long l=3;
>> using boost::phoenix::placeholders::_1;
>> A- Use a different name: make_converter_to?
>> s=boost::make_converter_to(*short*)(_1)(l) ;
>> B- Use the same name in a different namespace. What about using
>> "fp" as namespace (functional programming).
>> s=boost::conversion::fp::convert_to(*short*)(_1)(l) ;
>> C- Use the same name in the same namespace and use
>> SFINAE/enable_if to select the correct implementation depending
>> on the parameter.
>> s=boost::convert_to(*short*)(_1)(l) ;
> Your examples hide the functors, which somewhat obscures your request, I
> think, unless I've missed something. That is, I think you're asking what
> to name "factory" in the following example:
> auto f(factory<short>(_1));
> short const s(f(static_cast<long>(3)));
> Your suggestions for the "factory" call are:
> A. boost::make_converter_to<short>(_1)
> B. boost::conversion::fp::convert_to<short>(_1)
> C. boost::convert_to<short>(_1)

Yes. You have understood my request.

> I definitely dislike B. A isn't bad, but it should be in the
> boost::conversion namespace. C is very nice, but it should be in the
> boost::conversion namespace. The introduction of the placeholder is
> enough to signal that the result is a Phoenix lambda.

Even if C is the more elegant, to my taste, it introduce a dependency on
Boost.Phonix even if functors are not used, and this is one thing I would
like to avoid. So it seems that A is a best compromise.


View this message in context:
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at

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