On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Gordon Woodhull <gordon@woodhull.com>wrote: [...]
On Aug 1, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
On the conceptual level it is far from clear to me if such a framework is needed to begin with. In the Scope section Vicente explicitly states that his library "is not particularly concerned with cases of...". Those "excluded" cases happen to be the most tricky/used/needed cases. With those string-to-type, etc. cases taken out of the picture from the set-go, the usefulness of the remainder was many times questioned during Convert discussions (well before the Convert review) ... I never had a need for such a generic type-to-type conversion framework. Obviously, it's my own limited experience and it can be vastly different for others.
[...snip implementation concerns...] It seems like Vladimir and I are partially echoing each other's concerns (see my response to Vicente's example real world use case). - Jeff