Message du 05/05/11 23:37 De : "Vladimir Batov" A : boost@lists.boost.org Copie à : Objet : Re: [boost] [review] string convert
Vicente BOTET wanadoo.fr> writes:
Sorry. I believed we had a consensus ...
Did you actually say 'consensus'? LOL
Yes, I did. And I added I believed. I see you don't see the utility yet. But I'm sure you will see it soon..
Could we state if the default_value CP is adopted? How think is not a good thing and why?
I am certainly looking at the idea from my original 'convert' point of view where such a thing was not needed. I find the need to write something like
template <> default_value { static example apply() { return example(3); } };
quite bothersome as I know I really do not have to. In the original wacky design the fallback and the default were synonyms. Now you are introducing an additional piece of machinery/code that is needed to deploy a class with conversion and I have to provide the default and the fallback. With that in mind I am not sure I am personally warming up for default_value concept yet.
I was not talking here of the fallback. Note that you don't need to do that for the classes having a default constructor, which are most of them. Best, Vicente