I've implemented the functionality as I described (convert as a class) and uploaded it as v0.21. I feel it is a considerable step forward in many respects as now it is more of a conversion 'framework' as users can create their specific specializations of boost::convert for their specific needs (as I did with lexical_cast). At the same time it feels reconciliatory as fighting over names could be put to rest (I hope) as we or the users might write simple and generic wrappers to boost::convert. In particular, I added boost::convert_to and boost::convert_from. It's just a suggestion. We might decide to keep them or remove or rename them. I am not fussy about it. So, the deployment loos as follows: // Explicitly specified 'from' and 'to' types. My personal preference int i = boost::convert<string, int>(str, -1); string s = boost::convert<int, string>(-1, "conversion failed"); // Deduced 'from' type. int i = boost::convert_to<int>(str); string s = boost::convert_to<string>(-1); // Both types are deduced. int i = boost::convert_from(str, -1); string s = boost::convert_from(-1, "conversion failed"); Robert suggested renaming 'convert' to 'conversion' but I am not warming up to that (yet, you might have noticed I am slow) as I essentially see 'convert' as a functor, i.e. encapsulating as an action, i.e. a verb is more appropriate. For that reason the code itself looks readable (to me) as "boost::convert<int, string>" reads as 'convert int to string". Thanks, Vladimir.