Re: [boost] [conversion] try_lexical_cast and 200$

Subject: Re: [boost] [conversion] try_lexical_cast and 200$
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-12 19:31:08

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Eric Niebler <eniebler_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 12/12/2013 9:35 AM, Matt Calabrese wrote:
> > A little hackish, but:
> >
> > http://codepaste.net/py5ot3
>
> template< class T, int = 0, class S >
> boost::optional<T> lexical_cast( S const&, std::nothrow_t );
>
> Is that even legal?! A non-defaulted template parameter after a
> defaulted one? <boggle> How will this fare on older compilers, I wonder.

Yeah. I think it's worked on GCC and Clang ever since they've supported
defaults for function template parameters, but I could be mistaken. I don't
know about other compilers.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese