Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review Request: Boost.Convert
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-28 05:55:17
Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> What's wrong with the following call syntax:
>
> boost::convert<target>( source const & [,arg1,arg2,...] )
>
> that is, the caller provides the target type for the conversion, then
> the first argument is considered the source (deduced automatically),
> and the rest of the arguments configure the conversion.
>
> Going back to my uuid example, uuid.hpp could simply say:
>
> #include <string>
>
> namespace user {
> class uuid;
> template <class Target> Target convert( uuid const & );
> template <> std::string convert<std::string>( uuid const & );
> }
>
> (no need to include anything.)
>
> Now, the user of uuid.hpp can also #include "boost/convert.hpp" when
> making calls to convert. This could provide generic overloads that
> support common conversion options, which would bind only if uuid.hpp
> doesn't provide overloads itself (which would obviously be more
> specialized and the overload resolution will prefer them over the
> convert.hpp generics.)
Sorry, I can't imagine how the generic convert.hpp could provide support
for additional conversion options for user::uuid. It is my understanding
that such options should be supported by the user::uuid implementer and
should not be part of Boost.Convert. I may not understand your point
well, though. Could you produce an illustrating code sample?