Subject: Re: [boost] [lexical_cast] A suggestion
From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-03 16:35:48
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Batov" <batov_at_[hidden]>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
To: "Boost Developers' List" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:26 PM
Subject: [lexical_cast] A suggestion
>I use boost::lexical_cast quite a bit. Possibly due to specifics of my task
>I constantly stumble upon two things:
>
> 1. It throws if/when conversion fails;
> 2. It requires the 'Target' class to be default-constructible.
>
> I'd like to suggest extending the existing
>
> template<class Target, class Source>
> Target
> lexical_cast(Source const& arg)
>
> interface with
>
> template<class Target, class Source>
> Target
> lexical_cast(Source const& arg, Target const& failure_value)
>
> The behavior of the latter would be to return the 'failure_value' if/when
> the conversion fails. That communicates the fact of the conversion failure
> differently (without an exception thrown), i.e. its usage would be as
> following:
>
> int value = boost::lexical_cast(some-string, -1);
> if (value == -1) conversion failed.
>
> In fact, my usage pattern is such that I often do not even need to check
> the success of the conversion -- if the conversion fails, the supplied
> failure/default value is returned/used and proceeded with.
>
> Secondly, the proposed lexical_cast requirements would be looser -- no
> need for the default-constructibility of the Target, only the
> copy-constructibility (as already required anyway). For that the current
> lexical_cast implementation
>
> if(interpreter << arg) {
> Target result;
> if (interpreter >> result)
> return result;
> }
> throw_exception(bad_lexical_cast(typeid(Source), typeid(Target)));
> return Target(); // normally never reached (throw_exception)
>
> would change (for the proposed interface) to something like
>
> if(interpreter << arg) {
> Target result(failure_value);
> if (interpreter >> result)
> return result;
> }
> return failure_value;
>
> I am not sure how much value such an interface extension might have for
> others but for my usage pattern the benefit would be quite visible as the
> majority of our classes are with no default constructors and handling
> conversion-failure exceptions is quite a hassle... not to mention that for
> whatever guided/misguided reasons exceptions are virtually banned for our
> mission-critical development.
>
> Best,
> V.
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>