Subject: [boost] Second week of review for the Convert library
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-21 16:56:41
This is the second week of the the review of the Convert library, which
started Monday May 12 and goes through Sunday May 25. For those who have
been to C++ Now please take a look at the library and review it. I am
looking for at least a half dozen reviews before I can decide, based on
the reviews, whether or not the library should be accepted into Boost.
The Convert library builds on the boost::lexical_cast original design
and experience and takes those conversion/transformation-related ideas
* to be applicable to a wider range of conversion-related use-cases,
* to provide a more flexible, extendible and configurable
The Convert library can be cloned from GitHub at
https://github.com/yet-another-user/boost.convert. The library follows
the modular-boost format. Just clone it to modular-boost/libs in the
'convert' subdirectory and run 'b2 headers' in order to create a link to
its header file directory in the modular-boost/boost subdirectory.
The library comes with documentation in its top-level index.html or
doc/html/index.html file. You can also view the documentation online at
The library is by Vladimir Batov and is a second reiteration with a
greater focus of his library that was reviewed in the past. I am Edward
Diener and I am again serving as the review manager of the library.
If you have used lexical_cast or, like many C++ programmers, have used
stringstream to do string-to-type, type-to-string conversions please
look at this library. We need reviews of whatever point of view before a
library can even be considered a Boost library.
Comments, questions, and reviews will all be welcome for the library.
Please try to sum up your review by answering these questions:
What is your evaluation of the design?
What is your evaluation of the implementation?
What is your evaluation of the documentation?
What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have
How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
As always whether you do or do not feel that the library should be
accepted into Boost please specify any changes you would like to see for
the library to be better in your estimation.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk