On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:51 PM Emil Dotchevski wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:39 PM Emil Dotchevski wrote:
My question is, what is the motivation for the convert function? What's the use case for it that doesn't work with to_string/from_string?
That was my suggestion to account for both conversion
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote: directions and eliminate "string" from the name, thus opening the interface to other conversions.
An interface that converts anything to anything else is a separate issue, and requires a separate discussion.
If we concentrate on converting from and to string, I think that two families of functions, to_string and from_string is the most logical approach. When I want a string, I know that I want a string and at that time I don't care about any other conversions. I can't think of a use case when I might want a string but might also want something else.
The arguments, whether function or template, would specify the conversion to apply. For example, to_string<int>(s) could also be written as convert<int>(s). (Both can be rearranged to take two arguments and return a bool, for example, so the point is merely to eliminate directionality and "string" from the name.)
I don't buy this. In general, converting to_string requires formatting specifiers, etc. If the semantics of convert() are that it can convert anything to anything, it needs a way to configure the conversion, and I don't see how all this can be crammed into a single practical interface for all types (and even if that's possible, it's outside of the scope of this discussion IMO.) I'd much rather treat to_string and from_string not as synonyms of convert(), but as two independent interfaces (meaning, two separate HPP files: to_string.hpp and from_string.hpp) each designed for its specific task. These two conversions are important enough to justify this special attention. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode