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
> > imagine other similar use cases, where you want objects from two
> > libraries to be interconvertible. But this isn't *quite* what I was
> > for. Have you (or do you know someone who has) used the framework
> > 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.]
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk