From: "David Abrahams" <dave@boostpro.com> Also, for what it's worth, when this discussion moved from simple to_string/to_int type functionality into the realm of a "generalized conversion framework," I mostly lost interest.
I haven't been watching closely, so I could be wrong, it seems like a classic premature generalization... the same one, in fact, that makes lexical_cast unsuitable for many people's purposes. Generic components can only properly arise from a survey of many specific, non-generic components. Have we done that for this "generalized conversion utility" or is the interface being designed speculatively to allow for something that maybe nobody wants or needs?
Yes, I have to agree as I've been feeling the same. I read/write a lot of configuration data and I have to rely on XML for communications. I need/use string-to/from-type conversions a LOT in the lexical_cast manner. I've never had the urge of integrating type-to-type conversions into any kind of a framework as those conversions seem so type-specific that the following always felt as the natural choice: class Some { Some(Other const&) } That said, I was not sure if my experience was that exemplary so I did not want to shut the door for such a possibility. I am still hoping that that fairly neutral interface int i = convert<int>::from(str); does not sacrifice the string-based origins of that whole discussion and at the same time leaves the door open whatever might come our way... if ever. V.