[Boost-users] Fwd: Re: [Review] Boost.Convert library, last 3 days

Subject: [Boost-users] Fwd: Re: [Review] Boost.Convert library, last 3 days
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-01 13:29:38

I am forwarding this message sent directly to me as the review manager 
of the Boost Convert library review. I have removed the forwarding 
information to protect privacy.

Hi Edward,

  I am by no means an expert in library design, so perhaps I have a few
comments from the user-only perpective:

 >      - What is your evaluation of the design?

I think the design is appropiate in terms of purely extending
lexical_cast in terms of fallback values and optional exceptions.

However, I was expecting more from a library that extends on
lexical_cast, for example in terms of one of the goals of the library,
which is compact syntax. The feature I was expecting was conversion
based on default casting. In the library it seems that the source type
can be omitted (just as in lexical_cast). I would be a desired feature
that also destination types could be omitted. This could be possible
using cast operator such that

  Destination d = auto_convert::from(s); // or convert<>::from(s)
// default template parameter interpreted as potential auto conversion
based on destination type.

Instead of the redundant

  Destination d = convert<Destination>::from(s);

I think the requested feature (unless it is not possible, in that case
I am sorry about my request) is to be expected from the library.

 >      - What is your evaluation of the implementation?

I have no comments on it since I wouldn't be able to judge on
implementation used.

 >      - What is your evaluation of the documentation?

The documentation is understandable and  appropriate.

 >      - What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the
 >        library?

I would use the library just based in considering the natural and
explicit syntax introduced. Even more if the requested feature above
is introduced.

 >      - Did you try to use the library?  With what compiler?  Did you
 >        have any problems?

no

 >      - How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
 >        quick reading? In-depth study?

A glance

 >      - Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

no. Only from the point of view convenience.

 >      - Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?

yes, I think it should be accepted.

I hope this quick review is useful to make a decision. Although the
validity and weight of my vote can be objected because I am not really
an active player of the Boost community.

Thank you,
Alfredo Correa