From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2023-05-11 15:16:01
On 5/11/23 17:40, Matt Borland via Boost wrote:
>> How is this different from boost lexical cast?
>
> Robert,
>
> Charconv has a much smaller scope than lexical cast. We convert character arrays into built-in arithmetic types and vice versa. That’s it. Since it has such a narrow scope we can heavily optimize these conversions, which we have sunk a lot of time and effort into.
I remember there were a lot of optimizations poured into
Boost.Spirit.Qi/Karma. How does your library compare to those
implementations?