Subject: Re: [boost] [review] string convert
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jeremy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-05 21:58:59
On 05/05/2011 05:57 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> Vicente BOTET<vicente.botet<at> wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> ..
>> I suspect that these complex classes you are talking off don't define the
>> input/ouput stream operator to work with your conversion framework.
>
> Jeez, is it really that hard to accept that 'convert' works and is used with
> many classes complex or not. Say, a Train class is complex as it has a *lot* of
> stuff. We serialize/unserialize the class to/from XML using 'convert'. Train has
> op>>() op<<().
I don't like default_value as a customization point either. However, it
seems that for a non-default constructable type, operator>> is likely
not the ideal interface for unserialization. How would you use your
unserialization functionality separately from the convert library?
Presumably you would need some way to obtain a constructed instance in a
form suitable for invoking operator>>. If the non-default-constructable
type has any members that aren't default constructable, you would have
to somehow construct the members as well.