Re: Zach Laine CharConv review

From: Matt Borland (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-01-25 07:17:15

> My only complaint is that the semantics of boost::charconv::from_chars and
> boost::charconv::from_chars_strict seem backward to me. I know this
> was mentioned by other reviewers. I think that with near-identity to
> the standard version, having the same (or corresponding name within
> boost::) should imply the same semantics. This is classic adherence
> to The Principle of Least Surprise. I would much prefer that the
> varying version have the different name, and that the one with the
> standard's semantics should be from_chars. 

As the reviews/comments come in I am keeping track of this. Right now it is 2 for change, 1 for leave. I like that our default will not change behavior, but I understand the argument of Least Surprise.

> I also encourage the authors to track any changes to std::from_chars with boost::charconv::from_chars.
> 

Yes, whichever mode follows the standard will be updated accordingly when the LWG issue is closed out.

Thank you for taking the time to review the library. I appreciate the feedback.

Matt