On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 15:32, Stewart, Robert <Robert.Stewart@sig.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:11 PM Scott McMurray wrote:
Why is removing directionality from the name a good idea?
With just one name to remember -- the arguments can supply the rest -- the interface is simpler.
To continue my analogy, it would have been possible to only have static_cast and dynamic_cast, with the arguments supplying the rest, but it's better to make it clearer which can of conversion is being applied. "Convert" seems like it could make a very nice namespace/library name because of the same generality that makes me dislike it as a function name: convert::to_string<wstring>, convert::to_integral<int, rounding::down>, convert::transcode_string<wstring, native_mbcs>, ... Although convert might allow mix-fix relatively nicely: convert("5").to<int>(), ...