Stewart, Robert wrote:
Vicente Botet wrote:
Having just one CP is better. Sure, PTS is less obvious than overloading a function template, but having to know about both mechanisms and which is necessary in various circumstances, makes the whole mechanism more complicated than it should be.
Glad to see that we agree here.
I suspect that after refactoring, I will rename the namespace overload_workaround by something more positive. Any suggestions?
namespace boost { namespace conversion { template <class Target, class Source, class Enable = void> struct converter { Target operator (Source const &) const; }; } }
Note that I'm suggesting boost::conversion::converter<Target,Source,Enable> as the name and I'm suggesting s/apply/operator ()/ to make it a function object. These alterations mean that there is now a function object interface for effecting conversions from Source to Target which is the sole point of customization for all such conversions in the library.
Yes, this could be a valid possibility. I will need to fix names for the other function objects associated to assign_to (assigner?), try_convert_to (try_converter), ... Or shouldn't the library provide CP for all the operations?
BTW, it might be wise to make the primary specialization fail, perhaps through the use of BCCL in the convert_to function template.
Yes, this could be done adding a dependency on BCCL. If others think this is a must I would try to include it conditionally. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/conversion-ADL-and-templates-tp3561641p35... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.