Subject: Re: [boost] Boost review of the Convert library is ongoing
From: alex (alexhighviz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-23 05:24:47
>Either I am confused or you misinterpret the meaning of "interface".
I am an amateur, so likely it is me.
>Interface is for the users... that's why it's called "interface" in the
>first place... IMO anyway. "convert" does not have any interface that
>converter developers need to use. In fact, converters are not aware or
>coupled with "convert" infrastructure. What "convert" says with regard
>to converters is -- if you want to be incorporated into "convert"
>framework, you need a certain signature -- it's called a requirement.
How I understood it is that the generic boost::convert<> is a user of the
specific converters, it therefore poses requirements on the interface of the
specific converters. Where I understand interface to mean the functions and
signature they support.
If boost::convert<> puts requirements on the interface of specific
converters, I do not know why other users of specific converters should not
take advantage of those. Furthermore, it seems boost::convert<> extends the
(shared) interface of specific converters, i.e. it provides convenience
>> Whereby the boost::convert<> acts
>> as the middle man. Anybody looking for efficiency will consider
>> the middle man.
>... if you really care for efficiency, try compiling optimized and then try
>that "middleman" anywhere. :-)
I found him: he is performing a default construction that is not always
necessary. But there are other forms of efficiency too. Such as reducing
dependencies and writing more compact and expressive code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk