On 5/4/2011 10:32 AM, Phil Endecott wrote:
But per my last posts, anyone can easily write those in whatever style they want, if they have the core function, e.g.
template<typename ITER> void parse_int(ITER begin, ITER end, int& i, bool& success) { .... }
int must_parse_int(std::string s) { int i; bool success; parse_int(s.begin(),s.end(),i,success); if (!success) throw ParseError(); return i; }
optional<int> try_parse_int(std::string s) { int i; bool success; parse_int(s.begin(),s.end(),i,success); return success ? i : optional<int>(); }
int parse_int_with_default(std::string s, int def) { int i; bool success; parse_int(s.begin(),s.end(),i,success); return success ? i : def; }
It's not clear what complexity you're eliding and what you are really excluding. I don't think completely non-generic overloads like you've suggested will fly in boost. It also seems to emphasize string->type. What about int->string? Although you do bring up the interesting case of converting a string iterator_range. I think that is a very reasonable use case (to avoid copying). But I think we can do it with a single iterator_range argument instead of a pair of iterators. For example, it would be nice to be able to do: string node = "<value>1234</value>"; lexical_cast<int>(iterator_range(node.begin()+7, node.begin()+11)); -Matt