Re: [boost] [conversion] ADL and templates

Subject: Re: [boost] [conversion] ADL and templates
From: Vicente Botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-01 07:56:01

Stewart, Robert wrote:
> 
> Vicente Botet wrote:
> 
> 
> Having just one CP is better.  Sure, PTS is less obvious than overloading
> a function template, but having to know about both mechanisms and which is
> necessary in various circumstances, makes the whole mechanism more
> complicated than it should be.
> 

Glad to see that we agree here.

>> I suspect that after refactoring, I will rename the namespace
>> overload_workaround by something more positive. Any
>> suggestions?
> 
> namespace boost
> {
> namespace conversion
> {
>    template <class Target, class Source, class Enable = void>
>    struct converter
>    {
>       Target
>       operator (Source const &) const;
>    };
> }
> }
> 
> Note that I'm suggesting
> boost::conversion::converter<Target,Source,Enable> as the name and
> I'm suggesting s/apply/operator ()/ to make it a function object.  These
> alterations mean that there is now a function object interface for
> effecting conversions from Source to Target which is the sole point of
> customization for all such conversions in the library.
> 

Yes, this could be a valid possibility. I will need to fix names for the
other function objects associated to assign_to (assigner?), try_convert_to
(try_converter), ... Or shouldn't the library provide CP for all the
operations?

> BTW, it might be wise to make the primary specialization fail, perhaps
> through the use of BCCL in the convert_to function template.
> 

Yes, this could be done adding a dependency on BCCL. If others think this is
a must I would try to include it conditionally.

Best,
Vicente

--
View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/conversion-ADL-and-templates-tp3561641p3565635.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.