I am not sure I can answer all the questions sent so far individually. Some of the questions have been discussed/answered and hopefully this email might be of some help also. RE: convert() and directionality I've decided to stick with Robert's convert() (and his op>> as well. Thank you, Robert) as I agree with his view to leave the door open for possible extensions. That attitude has already proven useful to extend the conversions onto string-to-string (that I did not anticipate). With convert() it'll be easy to extend the existing functionality onto wstring<->u8string, etc. In string-to-string context the directionality issue is mute and I personally find convert() as very much appropriate. Even with string-to/from-type conversions directionality is still present (via types). I agree that with convert() the directionality is somewhat more subtle compared with to/from (or whatever the alternatives). RE: to/from: Yes, I understand quite a few people are not exactly thrilled with to/from. However, it is still here. Apologies. There are two (and a half) reasons for that -- 1) conceptual. Even though I am getting to like convert() more and more, I am still occasionally longing to express explicitly the direction of the conversion with to/from. 2) technical. This to/from-based interface is used in my current project and I am reluctant to needlessly disturb it in any way to avoid code reviews, etc. etc. 2.5) I happen to still like its terseness and directness as my code simply reads "string::to<int>" for string-to-int. I am getting more and more comfortable with convert() though. However, I've been using to/from for about 5 years and it feels like old shoes. Just give me some time to get used to something new. RE: to_string/from_string Somehow I did not like to_string/from_string from the start. I dunno. Just irrational primal dislike. I am sorry. Now it seems I might try putting some smoke-n-mirrors around that by justifying it by the functionality that Hartmut mentioned -- conversion from one symbol/character set to another. I've implemented it (v0.14) and it it like this: string encrypted = boost::string::convert(naked_str) >> my_cypher; string decrypted = boost::string::convert(encrypted) >> my_cypher; That is, we are converting from a string to again a string. In such context I very much like the direction-less nature of convert().
My problem is that I can't think of a case when I would be writing code that doesn't "know" if it is going "to" or "from" string.
Again, string-to-string (or string-from-string) comes to mind. Any directionality seems superfluous and I personally find the code above quite appropriate. Any other suggestions are always welcome as hartmut only brought it up yesterday and I only gave it a cursory thought (can I say a "cursory" thought? it kinda does not feel right).
I've needed to convert things specifically to std::string plenty of times to justify a simple interface where to_string returns std::string. I want to be able, in a header file, to just say: struct foo; std::string to_string( foo const & ); std::string to_string( foo const &, fmt ); and be done with it.
I hope that the suggested interface and implementation allow enough flexibility and simplicity without limiting one to std::string only: namespace bstring = boost::string; std::string s1 = bstring::convert(foo); std::string s1 = bstring::convert(foo) >> std::hex; // add formatting std::Wstring s1 = bstring::convert(foo, std::wtring()); // convert to wide string std::Wstring s1 = bstring::convert<std::wstring>(foo); // same as above RE: convert("5").to<int>(), I like Scott's suggestion of the above. It looks cute. OTOH I am not sure where to stick it into though. Thanks, Vladimir.