Subject: Re: [boost] Boost review of the Convert library is ongoing
From: alex (alexhighviz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-23 05:24:47
>Either I am confused or you misinterpret the meaning of "interface".
I am an amateur, so likely it is me.
>Interface is for the users... that's why it's called "interface" in the
>first place... IMO anyway. "convert" does not have any interface that
>converter developers need to use. In fact, converters are not aware or
>coupled with "convert" infrastructure. What "convert" says with regard
>to converters is -- if you want to be incorporated into "convert"
>framework, you need a certain signature -- it's called a requirement.
>
How I understood it is that the generic boost::convert<> is a user of the
specific converters, it therefore poses requirements on the interface of the
specific converters. Where I understand interface to mean the functions and
signature they support.
If boost::convert<> puts requirements on the interface of specific
converters, I do not know why other users of specific converters should not
take advantage of those. Furthermore, it seems boost::convert<> extends the
(shared) interface of specific converters, i.e. it provides convenience
functions.
>> Whereby the boost::convert<> acts
>> as the middle man. Anybody looking for efficiency will consider
eliminating
>> the middle man.
>
>... if you really care for efficiency, try compiling optimized and then try
finding
>that "middleman" anywhere. :-)
>
I found him: he is performing a default construction that is not always
necessary. But there are other forms of efficiency too. Such as reducing
dependencies and writing more compact and expressive code.