Re: [boost] [review] Conversion review ends today

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Conversion review ends today
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-01 01:43:50

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:18 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> on Tue Aug 30 2011, "Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr." <
> jeffrey.hellrung-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Your example of converting between boost::chrono objects and
> > boost::posix_time objects is, indeed, a real use case, so thank you.  I
> can
> > imagine other similar use cases, where you want objects from two
> independent
> > libraries to be interconvertible.  But this isn't *quite* what I was
> looking
> > for.  Have you (or do you know someone who has) used the framework
> provided
> > by Boost.Conversion to utilize conversions in a generic setting (e.g.,
> > generic algorithms or data structures)?
>
> I don't think that's an appropriate test for the usefulness of a
> library.  Lots of people who never write templates use std::vector.  But
> if you're not trying to determine utility, I am left wondering about the
> purpose of your question.
>

I feel like there's a difference between std::vector and Boost.Conversion,
in the sense that Boost.Conversion seems primarily geared toward generic
contexts.  I'm wondering about what the experience has been with using
Boost.Conversion in such contexts.  std::vector has plenty of uses
(understatement, probably) outside of generic contexts.  I could be wrong
about the scope of Boost.Conversion, though...

> ,----
> | This remark not intended to convey any position on the library in
> | question. Not to be used in interstate commerce. Void where prohibited
> | by law.
> `----
>
[Left this in to avoid a lawsuit from Dave.]

- Jeff