Message du 10/05/11 13:02 De : "Stewart, Robert" A : "'boost@lists.boost.org'" Copie à : Objet : Re: [boost] [convert] no-throw and fallback feature
Vicente BOTET wrote:
De : "Stewart, Robert"
Vicente BOTET wrote:
De : "Stewart, Robert"
int i; bool b; ctie(i, b) = try_converting_to(s); if (!b) { i = fallback; std::cerr << "using fallback\n"; }
Compare that to this:
int i(fallback); if (!try_converting_to(s, i)) { std::cerr << "using fallback\n"; }
The fist is more on the line of functional paradigm. The second on the procedural one. I understand that the procedural one can be more efficient, but the functional one separates clearly what are the in a,d the out parameters. Are both alternatives exclusive?
They aren't exclusive, but they'd need different names and, again, I suspect we'd be getting into the too-many-choices conundrum.
Couldn't overload be used here?
It could. However, there are two issues. First, note that the second doesn't require the target type template parameter because of the second argument. Second, we're back to the discussion that a "try_" function not returning bool. You've noted that optional offers the safe-bool implicit conversion, of course, but these issues will probably cause concern if not confusion.
Recall that the optional returning version can be written as convert_cast>(s) (or convert_to>(s)). Doing so is clear, works nicely with auto, and avoids the issues with a non-bool return value and difference in template parameter treatment. Consequently, I think that's a superior approach.
Hmmm. I like the optional specialization. I need to see in the absence of auto how usable is it.
Besides, the same thing is done with the following which is simpler and less tricky:
int i; if (try_converting_to(s, i)) ...
If conversion to bool is implicit the bool parameter will be redundant and the preceding could be expressed as
int i; if ((opt_tie(i) = try_convert_to(*int*)(s))) ...
Ah, right. That's a curious approach to it. You're suggesting, if I have all the parts aligned right, that try_convert_to() return optional and that opt_tie() assign to its argument iff the optional is set. That means there's an optional-based API and the following is also possible:
int i(fallback); opt_tie(i) = try_convert_to(s);
Yes this something I could use.
Note that such a function need not be named "try_convert_to." I'm not sure what other name to give it, at present, but it would be useful either way.
It appears that we're suggesting that opt_tie() be overloaded:
int i; bool b; opt_tie(i, b) = convert_to>(s); if (!b) { i = fallback; std::cerr << "using fallback\n"; }
and
i = fallback; opt_tie(i) = convert_to>(s);
No. I don't think the overload with the boolean parameter is really useful and it is a little bit confusing to have both.
Note that it seems to me that opt_tie() should be part of Boost.Optional.
Yes, of course. If at the end of this discussion we agree on the usefulness of opt_tie, we could start a new thread or contact the maintainer directly. Best, Vicente